Legal Opinion

Cassidy v. Meacham

New York Court of Chancery

Decided May 16, 1831PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Tiie complainant was a judgment creditor of the defendants, and applied for an injunction under the statute, (2 R. S'. 174, § 38,) to restrain them from disposing of their property, &c. The bill stated the issuing of a writ of fieri facias on the judgment, returnable at a certain day therein mentioned that the same was delivered to the sheriff on the first of May, instant; and that he made a return thereon that the defendants had no goods or chattels, &c.

Read the full summary

Tiie complainant was a judgment creditor of the defendants, and applied for an injunction under the statute, (2 R. S'. 174, § 38,) to restrain them from disposing of their property, &c. The bill stated the issuing of a writ of fieri facias on the judgment, returnable at a certain day therein mentioned that the same was delivered to the sheriff on the first of May, instant; and that he made a return thereon that the defendants had no goods or chattels, &c. The chancellor suggested that the allegation in the bill as to the time when the execution was returnable was insufficient; that, for aught…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.,

Perhaps a return made by the sheriff on an execution before the return day may be valid by relation, after the expiration of the time the execution has to run. Until the return day, however, it would be the duty of the sheriff to seize and sell any property of0the defendants which could be found within his bailiwick. The execution cannot-therefore be considered as legally returned unsatisfied until after the return day. The jurisdiction of this court to apply the property of the defendants, which is beyond the reach the execution at law, to the satisfaction of the debt due to…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Forbes v. . WallerNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
  2. Marks v. HardySupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
  3. Knauth v. BassettNew York Supreme Court · 1861
  4. Field v. ChapmanNew York Supreme Court · 1861
  5. Forbes v. WallerNew York Court of Appeals · 1862

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API