Howland v. Ralph
New York Supreme Court
IN August term last, a motion was made to set aside the execution issued in this cause, to the sheriff of Delaware, and which had been levied on a lot of land, that had been previously purchased from the defendant, by one Me Nee.
Read the full summary
IN August term last, a motion was made to set aside the execution issued in this cause, to the sheriff of Delaware, and which had been levied on a lot of land, that had been previously purchased from the defendant, by one Me Nee. The motion was made in behalf of Me Nee, who stated in his affidavit, that on or before the 24th day of May, 1804, he purchased the lot so levied on, from the defendant, for which he paid him 350 dollars, as being clear from all incumbrances : That about the 10th June, 180/, he learned, that prior to the purchase, a judgment had been entered up in favour of the…
1Per curiam
It appears, from the affidavit of the deputy-sheriff, and of the person who made the service upon the deputy, that a copy of the judge’s order was served, but that the original order was not shown. The general rule is, that in order to bring a party into contempt, the original order must, at the same time, be shown. (King v. Smithers, 3 Term, 351.)* The motion for an attachment against the deputy-sheriff must, therefore, be , . , rp, . . , , denied, ihe next question is, whether we can, upon the present motion, relieve William Me Nee, from the effect of the sale. The execution would clearly…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Clute v. VorisNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Kerr v. FarishMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Kendall v. HodginsThe Superior Court of New York City · 1858
- Jane v. AlleyMississippi Supreme Court · 1886
- Bank of Utica v. KibbyNew York Supreme Court · 1827
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.