Jackson ex dem. Thompson v. Stiles
New York Supreme Court
.FISK, for the defendant, moved to vacate a rule obtained in . . . May term, for leave to issue a habere facias possessionem in this cause, and also to set aside the writ of habere facias possessionem, which was tested the 16th May last, with costs. ‘ In August, 1810, the declaration and notice in ejectment was duly served on Isaac Bell, the tenant in possession, and in November term following, a judgment by default was recovered against the casual ejector, which was signed…
Read the full summary
.FISK, for the defendant, moved to vacate a rule obtained in . . . May term, for leave to issue a habere facias possessionem in this cause, and also to set aside the writ of habere facias possessionem, which was tested the 16th May last, with costs. ‘ In August, 1810, the declaration and notice in ejectment was duly served on Isaac Bell, the tenant in possession, and in November term following, a judgment by default was recovered against the casual ejector, which was signed the 26th November, and soon after, a habere facias possessionem was issued to the sheriff of Orange, returnable in…
1Per curiam
The first writ of possession has never been returned, and though a year and a day has intervened between the term at which the first writ was returnable and the issuing of the second, a scire facias was not requisite to revive the judgment. The first execution may have been continued down en the roll, to the time of issuing the second execution. As this may be done at any time, and is a thing merely of technical form, we will presume it to have been done in this case. Nothing appears to contradict this presumption, and the facts stated show that the party has never had the full fruit of his…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mayor v. EvertsonNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Sacia v. NestleNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Winebrener v. JohnsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1869