Legal Opinion

United States v. Conyngham

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

Decided October 15, 1801PublishedCited by 1 opinion

This was a question addressed to the court, respecting the priority of two executions, interfering with each other. A case was stated, which was shortly this. John Travis and others having obtained judgment in the supreme court of Pennsylvania, against F. and I. West, laid a fi. fa. on their household goods, and about twenty-eight days afterwards, assigned the judgment bona fide, and for a valuable consideration, to the defendants in this cause.

Read the full summary

This was a question addressed to the court, respecting the priority of two executions, interfering with each other. A case was stated, which was shortly this. John Travis and others having obtained judgment in the supreme court of Pennsylvania, against F. and I. West, laid a fi. fa. on their household goods, and about twenty-eight days afterwards, assigned the judgment bona fide, and for a valuable consideration, to the defendants in this cause. The sheriff. by the consent and approbation of Travis and Conyngham, allowed the goods to remain about thirteen months in the possession of the…

1Opinion of the Court

TILGHMAX. Chief Judge.

I think it may be taken for granted, that by the principles of the common law (Twyne’s ('.'ase, 3 Coke, 80b); and by the stat. of 13 Eliz. c. 5, adopted in this state, and practised under, before and since the Revolution, the conduct of the defendants would be considered as attended with those circumstances, which induce a legal presumption of fraud. When I use the word fraud, it is understood that no actual misconduct or immorality is ascribed to Messrs. Conygham. &c.. who are gentlemen of fair character, and have acted in this business. in all probability, solely from…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. The United States v. CoynghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1802

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

Powered by the Exa API