Maul v. Scott
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
The plaintiff.claimed property in a horse, which the defendant, as deputy marshal, had taken as the property of one E. P. Taylor, upon a fieri facias at the suit of A. B. The horse had been sold by Taylor to the plaintiff, Maul, on the 10th of January, the horse then being in the possession of one Edward Stone, as bailee of Taylor, who on that day gave a written order to Stone to deliver the horse to Maul.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff.claimed property in a horse, which the defendant, as deputy marshal, had taken as the property of one E. P. Taylor, upon a fieri facias at the suit of A. B. The horse had been sold by Taylor to the plaintiff, Maul, on the 10th of January, the horse then being in the possession of one Edward Stone, as bailee of Taylor, who on that day gave a written order to Stone to deliver the horse to Maul. On the 29th of January, a fieri facias against Taylor was issued in favor of A. B., returnable on the 4th Monday of March, and delivered to the marshal on the 19th of February, and returned…
1Opinion of the Court
The COURT,
however',
(Thruston, J., contra,)
said that the lien was lost by the return of the fieri facias, nulla bona, and was not revived by the delivery of the alias fieri facias to the marshal.
Verdict for the plaintiff’.
Motion for new trial on the ground of misdirection of the jury on that point, overruled.
2Cited by2 opinions
- In Re Continental Midway CorporationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1960
- In re Liberty Lumber Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1933