Williamson ex rel. Wallis v. Perkins
General Court of Virginia
MotioN, and rule on the plaintiff to show cause why the writ of venditioni exponas, issued in this case, should not be set aside. \ ft áppeared that a fieri facias issued, returnable to September term 1800, and was returned by the sheriff “laid as per • schedule, and on hand for want of buyers.”
Read the full summary
MotioN, and rule on the plaintiff to show cause why the writ of venditioni exponas, issued in this case, should not be set aside. \ ft áppeared that a fieri facias issued, returnable to September term 1800, and was returned by the sheriff “laid as per • schedule, and on hand for want of buyers.” The schedule referred to is as follows: “A schedule of the property of Ebcnc&er Perkins, taken with a f. fa. at the suit of David Williamson, and appraised by us, the subscribers, we being first qualified, this SOth day of August 1800. * -.ni»-“To dwelling house, griss-mul, saw-mill and fulling-mill,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
The return on the fieri facias is defective for want of a specification of the property; and the endorsement, by way of assignment, of the judgment from Williamson to Wallis, is an acknowledgment of satisfaction by the plaintiff from the defendant,' through Wallis, in express terms, and appears as part of the return itself; and this idea is confirmed by the sheriff’s return on the venditioni expo-* nis, “countermanded by plaintiff.”
YeNDITIONI EXPONAS AND RETURN QUASHED.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dorsey's Lessee v. DorseyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868
- Duvall v. WatersHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1827
- Griffin v. ShapiroCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2004