Davidson v. Rogers

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

The fi. fa. was quashed at a term of the court, Judge Estes presiding. If quashing a fi. fa. at the instance of the claimant means anything more than dismissing the levy, of course that was erroneous ; because the claimant had no business to quash a fi. fa. between other parties. That has been ruled perhaps two or three times by this court. But here no exception was taken. The course pursued was this: The plaintiff who suffered by this erroneous ruling made a' motion at that term to reinstate, on account of two facts, not alleging any error, but seeming to acquiesce in…