Flick v. Troxsell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northampton county. This was a feigned issue under the Act of 16th June 1836, ordered by the court at the request of George Troxsell, Jun., the plaintiff below, for the purpose of trying the rights of Conrad Flick and Troxsell to certain moneys in court arising from sheriff’s sale of the goods of Jacob Strickland.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northampton county. This was a feigned issue under the Act of 16th June 1836, ordered by the court at the request of George Troxsell, Jun., the plaintiff below, for the purpose of trying the rights of Conrad Flick and Troxsell to certain moneys in court arising from sheriff’s sale of the goods of Jacob Strickland. The plaintiff gave in evidence a judgment in favour of George Troxsell, Jun., against Jacob Strickland, in the Common Pleas of Northampton county, No. 164, August term 1842, entered 21st September 1842 for $859.98 on single bill and warrant of attorney…
1Opinion of the Court
*67The opinion of the Court -was delivered by
Rogers, J.
That the return of the sheriff is conclusive, is one of those elementary principles which cannot be gainsaid or denied. Was, then, the evidence rejected by the court in opposition to the sheriff’s return ? The sheriff had two executions in his hands, one issued the 21st September 1842, the other the 26th October 1842. The latter he returned levied subject to a prior levy, the former levied as per inventory and sold for $508.23. The legal effect of the return is, levied and sold and money made on the first etecution; so that nothing can be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Weir v. HaleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842