DOMESTIC ATTACHMENT.—This cause being removed by Certiorari from the Common Pleas, now came before the Court on the following Case, stated for their opinion:

“ The term of September, in the Common Pleas for the county of “ Philadelphia, in the year of our Lord 1782, began on the 4th day “ of September, and on the 16th day of September, in the same year, “ Judgment was entered in the Court aforesaid, in an action then “ depending at the suit of the Plaintiff, above named, against John Levinz, which action had been brought to the term of June, in “ the same year. On the 5th day of the same month of September, “ a Domestic Attachment issued out of the same Court, at the suit of “ John M‘Farland against the said John Levinz, and was served on “ the lands of the Defendant on the same day at 11 o'clock in the “ morning. No auditors were ever appointed, nor any other pro “ ceedings had, under the said attachment, untill a similar case was “ stated for the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas for the coun “ ty aforesaid, the 9th day of November, in the year of our Lord “ 1784.* At the time of rendering the Judgment aforesaid, the said “ John Levinz was seized of the aforesaid lands in fee, and to con-“ tinued untill the fame were fold under the same Judgment, by “ the said William Will, as Sheriff of the county, in whole hands “ the money remains.

“ The question submitted to the Court is, whether the said Ben- “ jamin Hooton, or the said John M'Farland, is entitled to receive “ the money from the Sheriff?

when two questions were made ;— 1st, Whether Hooton's Judgment related to the first day of the term, to as to exclude the Domestic Attachment, in his favor: And, 2dly, Whether the Domestic Attachment, for want of the regular continuances, was not out of Court?

1st, That the Act of Assembly, and English statute, with respect to docketing Judgments, extend only in favour of subsequent purchasors for a valuable confideration, 1 State Laws 463. 3 Black. Comm. 420. 14 Vin. tit. Judgment 616. Cro. C. Hetl. 72. S. C. under the Bankrupt Laws there is a relation to the time of the act of bankruptcy; and yet the legal relation of a judgment to the first day of the term, was held sufficient to defeat the claim of the Commissioners. Sid. 271. Skin. 257.

2dly, That from the case stated, it does not appear that Auditors, have been appointed under the Domestic Attachment. This, however, is not so material, as that there is no continuance of the cause. There is not, indeed, any law which directs a Judgment in a Domestic Attachment; but since on the report of the Auditors, the business is to be settled, till that is done, is necessary to continue the action; as in the cases of a writ of Partition, and an action of account. See 1 State Laws 121.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress