Newhall v. Buckingham
Illinois Supreme Court
Tins was a trial of right of property. The cause was heard before Wilkinson, Judge, and decided at April term of the Whiteside Circuit Court, 1852. The circuit court held that the right of property mentioned in the cause, was in the assignee of Hoyt and Hoskins. The facts in this case are substantially as follows, viz.: New-hall & Co. had a claim against Hoyt for goods, which they had sold him, and for which they took his note, amounting to near one thousand dollars.
Read the full summary
Tins was a trial of right of property. The cause was heard before Wilkinson, Judge, and decided at April term of the Whiteside Circuit Court, 1852. The circuit court held that the right of property mentioned in the cause, was in the assignee of Hoyt and Hoskins. The facts in this case are substantially as follows, viz.: New-hall & Co. had a claim against Hoyt for goods, which they had sold him, and for which they took his note, amounting to near one thousand dollars. Learning that Hoyt had absconded from the country, they sued out an attachment founded on their claim, and levied on a small…
1Opinion of the CourtTreat, C. J.
It was held in Buckhurst v. Clinkard, 1 Shower, 173, that on an execution against one of two partners, the sheriff might seize the partnership property, and sell the share of him against whom the writ issued. In Pope v. Haman, Comberback, 317, Holt, C. J., said: “ Upon a judgment against one copartner, the sheriff may take the goods of both in execution ; and the other copartner hath no remedy at law, otherwise than by retaking the goods, if he can; for the vendee of the sheriff becomes tenant in common with the other copartner.” In Heyden v. Heyden, 1 Salkeld, 393, on an execution against…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Scrugham v. CarterNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Kearns v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1834
- Moore & Co. v. SampleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- United States v. WilliamsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan · 1847
3Cited by5 opinions
- Union National Bank v. ByramIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Hubbard v. CurtisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Liverpool, Brazil & River Platte Navigation Co. v. Agar & LelongU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana · 1882
- Martin v. HertzAppellate Court of Illinois · 1905
- Nixon & Chatfield v. NashOhio Supreme Court · 1861