Lee v. Hinman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of ejectment, tried at Litchfield, August term, 1825, before Peters, J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of five several executions, one in favour of each of the plaintiffs, against one Amasa Hinman. In support of this title, the plaintiffs, after proving the judgments, offered in evidence the executions, which were in common form, and the returns of the officer thereon.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, tried at Litchfield, August term, 1825, before Peters, J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of five several executions, one in favour of each of the plaintiffs, against one Amasa Hinman. In support of this title, the plaintiffs, after proving the judgments, offered in evidence the executions, which were in common form, and the returns of the officer thereon. All the executions were put into the hands of the same officer, who levied them, at the same time, on the same piece of land; and the officer’s returns were the…
1Opinion of the CourtLanman, J.
The defendant’s objection to the evidence offered, was founded, 1st, upon the statute law of this state, (Stat. 57. tit. 2. s. 76.) in which, he contended, the time when, and the manner in which, executions might be levied upon land, were exclusively designated; that by a long course of practice and usage upon it, a practical construction was given to it; and that *169a consolidated levy could not be made, nor an estate in common be so created, in several levying creditors, by such a mode of levy: 2ndly, That as by the common law, lands could not be taken by execution, so any statute which…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Giddings v. CanfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
- Jessup v. BattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1812