Kimball v. Munger
New York Supreme Court
Judgment in this cause was recovered in the supreme court against the defendant, and on the 18th day of June, 1841, a ji. fa. was issued to the sheriff of Columbia who made a levy upon the goods of the defendant and left them in his possession. Soon after, the plaintiff directed the sheriff not .to proceed to sell unless forced to do so by subsequent judgments until further orders, as an arrangement had been made which, if fulfilled by the defendant,' would prevent a sale.
Read the full summary
Judgment in this cause was recovered in the supreme court against the defendant, and on the 18th day of June, 1841, a ji. fa. was issued to the sheriff of Columbia who made a levy upon the goods of the defendant and left them in his possession. Soon after, the plaintiff directed the sheriff not .to proceed to sell unless forced to do so by subsequent judgments until further orders, as an arrangement had been made which, if fulfilled by the defendant,' would prevent a sale. Afterwards one McCagg obtained two judgments on bond and warrant against the same defendant in the Columbia common pleas,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, J.
No doubt, on the facts stated, the execution in this court is dormant in respect to those in *366the common pleas; and the main question is, whether we have jurisdiction to declare the preference of the latter in this summary way. We have no direct control over the parties in the common pleas executions, nor of the sheriff, who, in respect to them, is an officer of the common pleas; but we have control over the plaintiff Kimball, against whom McCagg moves, and also over the sheriff in respect to the execution on the judgment in this cause. McCagg voluntarily submits himself…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Story v. PattenNew York Supreme Court · 1829