Smith v. Doe ex dem. Walker
Mississippi Supreme Court
In error from the circuit court of Madison county; Hon. Morgan L. Fitch, judge. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. Oil the point, that the execution under which the sale took place, was improperly admitted in evidence because of the previous levy, cited Arnold v. Fuller, 1 Ham. 458; 1 Pirtle’s Dig. 406, § 1; 3 McCord, 429; Kershaw v. Merchants Bank of New York, 7 How.
Read the full summary
In error from the circuit court of Madison county; Hon. Morgan L. Fitch, judge. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. Oil the point, that the execution under which the sale took place, was improperly admitted in evidence because of the previous levy, cited Arnold v. Fuller, 1 Ham. 458; 1 Pirtle’s Dig. 406, § 1; 3 McCord, 429; Kershaw v. Merchants Bank of New York, 7 How. (Mi.) 386; 4 Man. 402; 2 Pick. 586; 6 Wend. 562. On the point, that there ivas no proof of defendant’s possession, cited Pickett v. Doe, 5 S. & M. 470; Newman v. Foster's heirs, 3 How. (Mi.) 383;…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Clayton
An execution, issued on a judgment of C. Marsh <fc Co. against Benjamin Williams and John S. Gooch, which was levied on real and personal estate, sufficient to have satisfied it, on the first of September, 1837. Some years afterwards, another execution issued on the judgment, which was levied on the land in controversy, which was sold to the lessor of the plaintiff, and a sheriff’s deed made therefor. This suit is brought to recover the possession. To defeat the recovery, the defendant proved the levy made in September, 1837, and relied on it as satisfaction of the execution. To rebut this,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Un Wong v. Kan ChuHawaii Supreme Court · 1884