Roebuck v. Thornton
Supreme Court of Georgia
Assumpsit, &c. in. Elbert Superior Court. Tried before. Judge Andrews, March Term, 1855. This was an action, by the Sheriff', against a ¡purchaser, at his sale, who refused to comply with his bid.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, &c. in. Elbert Superior Court. Tried before. Judge Andrews, March Term, 1855. This was an action, by the Sheriff', against a ¡purchaser, at his sale, who refused to comply with his bid. On the trial, the Deputy Sheriff testified that he did not see the negro until the day of salo; that when he went to levy, the defendant in fi. fa. told him the negro was there, and to enter a levy on thefi. fa.; and defendant gave a bond for the forthcoming of the negro, and in compliance therewith, produced him at the day of sale. The Court decided and charged the Jury, that these facts…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Benning, J.
delivering the opinion.
[1.] The negro was produced by the defendant in fi.fa. on the day of sale, and was, on that day, sold by the Sheriff.
The question is, did the Sheriff, under the circumstances of the case, have authority to sell the negro ?
The Counsel for the plaintiff says no. His position is, that a Sheriff has no authority to sell property under a fi. fa. if he has not-actually laid his hands, or at least his eyes, on the property. His idea is, that nothing short of this will amount to a levy.
But do the terms of the fi. fa. require as much as this? They are,…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Reynolds Banking Co. v. Southern Pacific Guano Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Hatton v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Tennessee-Virginia Construction Co. v. WillinghamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Moore v. Brown, Bradbury & Catlett Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Smith v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.