Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Blackf. 226

Lasselle v. Moore

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 1822

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1822-11-18

THIS was a suit in equity, transferred from the Knox Circuit Court previously to a decree, in consequence of the interest of the circuit judge. The proceedings against the complainant, on an execution mentioned in the bill, had been enjoined by the Court below, until the hearing of the cause.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1822-11-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1889

9 state decisions

301822183018401850186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Scott, J.

¶1Lasselle complains in his bill, that an execution-was issued against him and another, in favour of Moore, without any judgment to authorize it; and that, after the real estate of one of the defendants had been offered for sale on a venditioni exponas, and the sheriff had returned that the property was not sold for want of bidders, a ft. fa. was sued out and levied on the personal estate of the other defendant.

¶2This is a case properly relievable in a Court of law, by notice and motion to set aside the execution (1). If an execution be issued without a judgment, — or if, while the real estate of the defendants or either of them is held by a venditioni exponas, the plaintiff take out a ft. fa. and levy or be about to levy on other property, — the Circuit Court will set aside such illegal execution on motion.

¶3Should an execution, improvidently issued, press the defendant so closely, that he cannot give ten days’ notice, and have it set aside on motion in a Court of law, he may, by application to the Chancellor, have an injunction, or an order to stay proceedings, till he can be heard. But, except for the purpose of staying proceedings till application can be made to a Court of law, a Court of chancery has nothing to do with it.

Per Curiam.

¶4The injunction is dissolved, and the bill dismissed, with costs.

¶5 Vide Cline v. Green, ante, p. 53. — Hedges v. Gray, May term, 1829, post.

/1/blackf/226 · .json · Public domain