placed in his hands for collection, unless the has paid the amount to the officer to whom they were due. Goldsmith's Adm'r. vs. Pattison's Ex'r. 205
2. On a sale made by a sheriff under a fieri facias, what things are con- sidered fixtures to the freehold, &c. Kirwan vs Latour, 290 3. Where a sheriff's return on a fieri facias, and his conveyance of the land sold under it, are apparently regular, the title cannot be divested out of the purchaser, except by proof of fraud or collusion between him and he sheriff Bull's Lessee vs Sheredine,
4. An attachment may be had against a sheriff for not returning a writ. West vs Hughes, 453 5. If lands he sold by a sheriff under
a fieri facias issued on a prior judgment and lien, the surplus of the money arising from the sale after satisfying such prior lien, re- maining in the hands of the sheriff, is to be considered as land, and liable to an attachment issued on a subsequent judgment and lien. Davidson vs Clayland, Garnishee of Blake,
See Fieri Facias 4, 8, 9.
Poundage Fees.
1. The State stands in the place of the Proprietary as to all lands belong- ing to him at the time of the act of confiscation Ringgold's Lesse vs. Malott, 299 316 2. Where the State and an individual have e judgments against a deceased person, in the payment of the debts of the deceased by his executor, the judgment of the state has a preference, and is to be paid first. Contee vs Chew's Er'r. 4'7
3. Under the act of March 1778, ch. 9, 6, as soon as a suit is commenc- ed by the state, a lien is created on the lands of the debtor, and the state acquires a right of preter- ence over the other creditors who had not, prior to the commence- ment of the suit by the state, se- cured a lien by judgment, mortgage or otherwise. Davidson vs. Clay- land, Garnishee of Blake, 546
If such lands be sold by the sheriff under a fieri facias issued on a prior judgment and lien, the surplus of the money arising from the sale, after satisfying such prior lien, remaining in the hands of the sheriff, is to be considered as land and subject to an attachment issued by the state on its judgment, in preference to a prior attachment is- sued by a private creditor on a judg
the fieri facias. Quere. The State use of Warder, vs. Page, et al 475 2. If an appeal or writ of error be dis- missed by the appellant or plaintiff in error, a second appeal or writ of error, though bond be filed, &c. will not operate as a supersedeas, where the first appeal, &c was a supersedeas. Whetcroft's Adm'r. vs. Dorsey's Ex'rs 3. A writ of error is not a supersedeas where the bond is not given in double the amount of the debt and costs recovered, or where the con- dition of such bond is that if the plaintiff in error shall not prosecute such writ of error with effect, the bond shall not be void. Johnson vs. Goldsborough,
1. A surety in a collector's bond is not answerable for a sum of money directed by an act of assembly to be levied at a particular time, and which was not so levied, although he had in the court below with- drawn his plea and confessed a judgment Quynn vs. The State, use of Pue, et al. 36 2. A surety in a testamentary bond is not a competent witness in behalf of the executor in a suit by him. Bean's Ex'r. vs. Jenkins's Adm'r.
3. If a sum of money is levied by the levy court, after the time prescrib- ed by law for making it has pass- ed, and the money is collected and not paid over, the sureties of the collector are not answerable or t.
Ellicott, et al vs. The Levy Court, &c. 4. The heir at law of a deceased joint obligor leaving a survivor, who was his surety in the bond and who paid the debt, is not answera- ble to such surety in an action of assumpsit, unless he is sued as heir, and unless he had promised to pay the debt of his ancestor; and it must also be averred that suffici ent real estate had descended to the heir from the ancestor. Preston vs Preston, 366
See Administration Bond 1. Evidence 76.
1. The lines of an elder survey will prevail over those of a junior sur- vey where they interfere with each
2. A conveyance for a mo`ety of the land on which the trespass com- plained of was committed, per- mitted to be read in evidence be- fore it was proved that the grantor therein had a right to convey. The court will direct the jury, in case it is not afterwards shown that he had such right, that such con- veyance is not evidence. Lowes rs- Holbrook, 153 3 The plaintiff to recover in an ac- tion of trespass q cf must show title, or that he was in the actual possession of the place where, &c. when, &c Norwood vs. Shipley,
6. The moving of fence rails is a tres- pass for which damages may be recovered in an action of trespass
S. In an action to recover mesne pro- fits the plaintiff must show the best way he can what those profits are, either by proving the profits re- ceived from the land, or the pro- bable value of the land. West vs. Hughes, 574 Where he resorts to the first mode, and claims for profits an. terior to the demise in the eject- ment, he must prove the defendant was in possession and received the profits, Ib. The defendant may show that the plaintiff was in possession of part of the land, and received the profits of such part, 16. 11 Where the defendant is in possession of land of which he de- rived no benefit, he cannot be compelled to pay more than the profits derived from it, if the plain. tiff resorts to that mode of proving the profits,
It is not like an action of trespass for damages; it is for the use and occupation of land which was recovered in an action of eject- ment,
Ib. 13 If the plaintiff in an action for mesne profits can prove his title ac- crued before the time of the de-
1. A general legacy does not vest the property bequeathed in the legatee, without the assent of the executor, and the executor may maintain trover for such property against the legatee. Wilson's Ex'x. vs. Rine, 139 2. Whether or not a bequest to the daughter is good evidence to the jury in mitigation of damages in an action of trover by the execu trix against the husband of the daughter, for the property be- queathed, if there is no proof of an assent by the executrix to such legacy? lb. 3. If A purchases stills of B, and pays him the purchase money, and B afterwards takes the stills in pos- session, the proper remedy is trover, and A cannot support assumpsit against B to recover back the pur- chase money. Kirwan vs. Raborg, 296
4. On paying the whole costs incur. red in the action, the plaintiff may amend his declaration from assump- sit to trover, Ib. 5. If chattels are delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant for sale, and he, instead of selling them, appropriates them to his own use, and refuses to account for them, the plaintiff may sustain an action of trover. Barton vs. White's Adm'r.
Executor and Administrator 11. Insolvent Debtor 3.
UMPIRE AND UMPIRAGE. See Award 4.
UNDERWRITERS.
See Insurance.
USAGES AND PRACTICES. See Land Office 2.
Promissory Note 2, 3.
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan » |