Read v. Markle
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trover, for a quantity of wheat, in the sheaf, and a quantity of hay. The declaration was entitled of February term, 1807, and alleged the conversion to have been on the 1st November, 1802. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the statute of limitations. There was a general replication to the second plea, and issue taken thereon.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trover, for a quantity of wheat, in the sheaf, and a quantity of hay. The declaration was entitled of February term, 1807, and alleged the conversion to have been on the 1st November, 1802. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the statute of limitations. There was a general replication to the second plea, and issue taken thereon. The cause was tried at the Herkimer circuit, before the Chief Justice, the 30th May, 1808. On the 24th August, 1799, the sheriff of Herkimer county, took the property in question by virtue of a writ of fieri facias, issued out of this court, in…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
It is expressly stated in the case, that the execution was set aside for irregularity ; if so, this case is not distinguishable from that of Parsons v. Lloyd. (3 Wils. 345.) In that case, the court distinguished between erroneous, and irregular process ; the latter they held to be void and a nullity from the beginning; that, under the first, a party might justify until it be reversed, but not under an irregular process, because it was his own fault that it was irregular and void at first. The execution issued in favour *526of Smith and Tater, against the plaintiff, being admitted t° be irregular,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Woodcock v. BennetNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Riley v. WilsonTexas Supreme Court · 1893
- Kelsey v. GriswoldNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Hall v. TomlinsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1833
- Brown, Toler & Phillips v. Hurt & Bro.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1857
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.