David Pettingill Versus Samuel C. Bartlett.
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was an action of trespass, for taking and carrying away seventeen tons of hay, belonging to the plaintiff. The cause was tried in this county at the last April term, when it appeared in evidence that the defendant, having an execution in his own favour against one J. S. Stone, who owned one undivided half of the hay mentioned in the writ as tenant in common with the plaintiff, caused the whole of the hky to be seized and sold upon the execution ; and the question was,…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass, for taking and carrying away seventeen tons of hay, belonging to the plaintiff. The cause was tried in this county at the last April term, when it appeared in evidence that the defendant, having an execution in his own favour against one J. S. Stone, who owned one undivided half of the hay mentioned in the writ as tenant in common with the plaintiff, caused the whole of the hky to be seized and sold upon the execution ; and the question was, whether this made him liable to the plaintiff in trespass. A verdict was taken, by consent, for the defendant, subject to…
1Per curiam
When a debtor owns goods jointly, or as tenant in common with another, the sheriff may seize the whole upon execution; but he should sell only the undivided share of the debtor. In that case the purchaser of the debtor’s share becomes tenant in common with the other owner or owners. 1 Salkeld 392, Heydon vs. Heydon. — 2 L. Raymond 871. — Comb. 217. — Douglas 650, Eddie vs. Davidson. — Cowper 449, Fox vs. Hanbury. — I East 367, Smith & al. vs. Stokes. — 3 Bos. & Pul. 288, 289.
If the sheriff in such case undertakes to sell the whole, nothing but the interest of the debtor will pass; and the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lewis v. WhittemoreSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1831
- Moulton v. RobinsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853