Kintzing v. McElrath
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Clinton. Trespass against the sheriff and his deputy, and Moorhead, for seizing personal property, consisting of household furniture. It appeared, that one Carskadden had assigned the property in question to Church, for the benefit of creditors on the 20.th of December, by deed recorded. On the 30th, writs of fi. fa. against Carskadden were left with the sheriff, to which he returned ££ money made on this writ.”
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Clinton. Trespass against the sheriff and his deputy, and Moorhead, for seizing personal property, consisting of household furniture. It appeared, that one Carskadden had assigned the property in question to Church, for the benefit of creditors on the 20.th of December, by deed recorded. On the 30th, writs of fi. fa. against Carskadden were left with the sheriff, to which he returned ££ money made on this writ.” It also appeared, that Moorhead, one of the defendants, was bail for Carskadden in the judgments on which these writs issued. On the 6th of January,…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
The first point raised by the assignment of errors seems to have been settled by McClelland v. Slingluff, 7 Watts & Serg. 134, in which it was ruled in an action against a sheriff who had returned on an execution, “made $349 30 and costs, $100 of which applied to rent, and the balance to this execution,” that it was. not competent for him to prove by parol an actual levy pursuant to it. In the case before us, the return was “money made on this writ,” yet the sheriff was allowed to prove an actual levy by parol evidence.
The charge was erroneous in the direction, that if Kintzing knew the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Laidlaw v. OrganSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- M'Clelland v. SlingluffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rose v. BarclaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Sansom v. Provident Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931