Porter v. Fine
Tennessee Supreme Court
This was a motion made in the circuit court of Sevier county, to allow the sheriff to amend his return upon an execution levied upon land. The return is as follows, viz: “No goods and chattels of the defendant found in my county ; but levied this Fi.
Read the full summary
This was a motion made in the circuit court of Sevier county, to allow the sheriff to amend his return upon an execution levied upon land. The return is as follows, viz: “No goods and chattels of the defendant found in my county ; but levied this Fi. Fa. on four hundred and. seventy one acres of land lying in 5th district, adjoining the land of C. Cannon, H. M. Thomas and others ; levied on as the property of James P. H. Porter, sr., this 14th of May, 1848. J. Howard, Sh’ff.” The proposed amendment was to show that the land levied upon lies in Sevier county ; that it consists of four pieces…
1Opinion of the Court
McKinney, J. :
In no instance can an amendment be allowed, where in effect it would be not merely to aid an informal description of the premises levied upon, though good in substance, but to give a new or different description thereof, and thereby, upon a pretext of an amendment, substitute a sufficient return for one wholly inoperative and void.
The return, standing alone, is essentially defective. The description of the premises is insufficient — the levy must show the location of the land levied upon with reasonable certainty; — the sheriff cannot resort to a presumption to supply evidence…
2Cited by45 opinions
- Kelley v. BoettcherCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
- Coursey v. Greater Niles Township Publishing Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1968
- Cooper v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899
- Emerson v. GaitherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1906
- Cockrill v. CooperCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.