Willard v. Sperry
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The defendant in error brought an action in the Court he-low against the plaintiff in error, which was commenced by attachment. The constable, who executed the attachment, merely returned, that he had, by virtue thereof, levied upon / ’ . , „ , , r, certain articles, enumerating them.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The defendant in error brought an action in the Court he-low against the plaintiff in error, which was commenced by attachment. The constable, who executed the attachment, merely returned, that he had, by virtue thereof, levied upon / ’ . , „ , , r, certain articles, enumerating them. On the return day the defendant did not appear, and the plaintiff below declared on a promissory note drawn by the defendant for 125 dollars, payable in eight days after date. There were, also, four other attachments, in suits between the same parties; 7 *■ ’ and all…
1Per curiam
The judgment is erroneous. The note forming one indivisible contract, cannot be the foundation of several suits. It is a usurpation of jurisdiction, and a justice might, if this be tolerated, take cognizance of con- , , , tracts to any amount.
There is, besides, error in the proceedings in regard to the return of the attachment. The 24th section of the act for the recovery of debts to the value of twenty-five dollars, enacts, “ that it shall be the duty of the constable to attach 7 J and keep the goods, &c. and to leave a copy of such at- , 1 ° rv tachmentat the dwelling house, or other last…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Little v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Noble v. Thompson Oil Co. ex rel. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Wagner v. JacobySupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Bullard v. ThorpeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- Warren County v. WardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.