Hewson v. Deygert
New York Supreme Court
HILDRETH, (Attorney-General,) in behalf of David I. Zeilly, and Joseph Spreaker, moved, that all sales of lot No. 4. in Van SlycPs and Depeysteps patent, in the town of Palatine, in the county of Montgomery, under a fieri facias issued in the above cause, be postponed indefinitely, or forbidden. _ In the affidavits which were read, the following facts were stated.
Read the full summary
HILDRETH, (Attorney-General,) in behalf of David I. Zeilly, and Joseph Spreaker, moved, that all sales of lot No. 4. in Van SlycPs and Depeysteps patent, in the town of Palatine, in the county of Montgomery, under a fieri facias issued in the above cause, be postponed indefinitely, or forbidden. _ In the affidavits which were read, the following facts were stated. On the 6th February, 1811, Zeilly and Spreaker purchased, for 1,670 dollars, the lot No. 4. , , , . , . „ , at a sheriff’s sale, under an execution issued m February vacation, 1810, in the above cause, and under another execution…
1Per curiam
It is not requisite that the court shoiild interfere in this summary way, by rule, to prevent the sheriff from selling property on execution which is alleged not to belong to the defendant. The party having title has his "remedy by action, if he sustains injury, and no sale by the sheriff will affect the title to lands not subject to sale under the execution. But though the motion is denied on this ground, the court think proper to intimate their impression on the question which has been raised, lest the parties may be misled by their silence. They give no decided opinion, as the point may…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Saunders v. CadwellNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Ellsworth v. . LockwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Jones v. Kokomo Building Ass'nIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Simpson v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Williams v. Charles F. Dunn & Sons Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.