Legal Opinion

Steele v. Murray

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1822PublishedCited by 2 opinions

APPEAL from the Clark Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.

A fieri facias was issued in favour of Steele and Co. against Murray and Gray on a replevin bond, and returned “No goods or chattels, and not levied on real estate by order of the plaintiff’s attorney.” The plaintiffs then sued out a ca. sa., on which the defendants were taken into custody. The Court, on motion of the defendants, quashed the ca. sa. on the ground that the plaintiffs could not abandon one species of execution, and resort to another. We think this ground untenable. ' A plaintiff may sue out one writ of execution, and, before it is executed, may abandon it, and sue out another…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. StansburySupreme Court of the United States · 1828
  2. Appleby v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. McIver v. BallardIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Shepley v. CowanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API