Taylor v. Marshal
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, to the court of common pleas of the county os C nmvilnv)f WwtUis The defendants below objected to the testimony, but the court permitted it to go to the jury, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff below. The defendants below tendered a bill of which was removed into this court by writ of error. account.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, to the court of common pleas of the county os C nmvilnv)f WwtUis The defendants below objected to the testimony, but the court permitted it to go to the jury, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff below. The defendants below tendered a bill of which was removed into this court by writ of error. account. The defendant in error brought an action in the court be- low, to recover the value of a pair of oxen, which had belonged to one Ward,. and were taken by Taggart, one of the defendants below, who was a constable, under an execution issued in favour of the other defendants below,…
1Per curiam
The case is imperfect in not stating whether the cattle were in Ward's possession or not, when taken on the execution; nor whether the conversation proved by Marshal, was before, or after, the levying the execution on the oxen.
We think, however, there is enough to show, that the evidence was improper, and that it may fairly be intended, that the was after the judgment and execution; it was an to prove and set up an antecedent sale, by the confessions and declarations of the parties, to the prejudice of the rights of a third person; nothing but the fact of the sale, derived from witnesses…
2Cited by2 opinions
- People ex rel. Attorney General v. River Raisin & Lake Erie RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
- Doe, on the Demise of Maxwell v. MooreIndiana Supreme Court · 1837