Wells v. Marshall
New York Supreme Court
In the first cause, z. fi.fa. against the goods of the defendant was delivered to the sheriff of Ulster, on the 18th April, 1825. On Tuesday evening, the 19th of April, the plaintiffs in the second cause obtained an attachment against the goods of the defendant, from a Justice of Ulster, under which, early on Wednesday morning, the 20th, a constable levied on, and took into his custody, the defendant’s goods, the fi.fa. not yet being levied; but, on the same day, the sheriff…
Read the full summary
In the first cause, z. fi.fa. against the goods of the defendant was delivered to the sheriff of Ulster, on the 18th April, 1825. On Tuesday evening, the 19th of April, the plaintiffs in the second cause obtained an attachment against the goods of the defendant, from a Justice of Ulster, under which, early on Wednesday morning, the 20th, a constable levied on, and took into his custody, the defendant’s goods, the fi.fa. not yet being levied; but, on the same day, the sheriff went to the defendant’s dwelling house and levied on all the goods to be found. And the question was, which process…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The case of Lambert and others v. Paulding, is decisive, that the fi.fa. must take preference
Rule accordingly.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Patterson v. PerryThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859
- Hanchett v. IvesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889
- Koning v. BayardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1829