Adair v. M'Daniel
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Before Mr. Justice Gaillard, at Chester, Fall Term, 1828. Tins was a rule upon the sheriff to show cause, why the proceeds of certain slaves, levied on and sold as the property of the defendant M‘Daniel, should not be paid over to the plaintiff’s execution. There were executions against the same defendant duly entered in the sheriff’s office prior to the plaintiff’s; but a preference was claimed for the latter under the following circumstances.
Read the full summary
Before Mr. Justice Gaillard, at Chester, Fall Term, 1828. Tins was a rule upon the sheriff to show cause, why the proceeds of certain slaves, levied on and sold as the property of the defendant M‘Daniel, should not be paid over to the plaintiff’s execution. There were executions against the same defendant duly entered in the sheriff’s office prior to the plaintiff’s; but a preference was claimed for the latter under the following circumstances. The defendant Cornwell, whose liability to the plaintiff’s debt was that of a surety for his co-defendant, had pointed out the slaves in question as…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
It is conceded, that if the levy and sale had been made in the ordinary way, the senior executions would have been intitled to the money; and I can discover nothing in the circumstances
under which this levy was made, which would lead to a different result. The lodgment of the executions created a lien on the whole of M‘Dafliel’s personal property; and I apprehend that this lien could only be discharged by the parties interested. Now the plaintiffs in these executions have done nothing, that I can perceive, to discharge their several liens. It is true they refused to indemnify the sheriff; but…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bliss v. BallNew York Supreme Court · 1812