Dorland v. Dorland
New York Supreme Court
The judgment being for the plaintiff, on confession upon bond and warrant of attorney, he issued a fi. fa. to the sheriff of Onondaga, returnable in February term last; which was levied on certain property of Willets. After the return day, but before the return of this fi. fa. the plaintiff discovered other property of Willets, not levied upon.
Read the full summary
The judgment being for the plaintiff, on confession upon bond and warrant of attorney, he issued a fi. fa. to the sheriff of Onondaga, returnable in February term last; which was levied on certain property of Willets. After the return day, but before the return of this fi. fa. the plaintiff discovered other property of Willets, not levied upon. Whereupon the plaintiff obtained a stipulation from Borland, one of the defendants, that a second fi. fa. might issue to the sheriff of the same county, and that he would not move to set it aside. He then issued a second fi. fa. to the same sheriff,…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The second execution was irregular. The farthest we have gone, before the first execution returned, is, to allow another in a county different from the one to which the first issued. The consent of Borland cannot affect the rights of Willets. The second fi. fa. and all subsequent proceedings upon it, must be set aside with costs, on the defendant, Willets, stipulating to bring no action for the levy under it.
Rule accordingly.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Merritt v. GroverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881