Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Johns. 311

Lambert v. Paulding

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1820

New York Supreme Court · decided 1820-10-15

CAINES, for the plaintiffs in the first cause, moved that the sheriff ofthe county of W estchester do pay to the plaintiffs in the first suit above mentioned, or to their attorney, out of the monies… Held: “that neither before nor since the statute of frauds, is the property of the goods altered, but remains in the defendant until execution executed (2 Equ. Cas. Abr. 381. per Lord Hard-wicke. Hotchkiss v. M Vickar, per Spencer, J 12 Johns.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1820-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1929

4 state decisions

2018201830184018501860187018801890190019101920decided

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1The delivery of the fi. fa. in the s<u ? f Lambert and others, against the defendant, to th*' si> of the City and County of New-York, bound the gm-ti, of the defendant, then in his bailiwick; and the pi iinni-, in that execution, cannot be deprivtd/bf the lien on the sloop, which was then lying in New York, by the act of the defendant, in removing the vessel into another county. He would be liable to an action, at the suit of the sheriff, for so removing the property. We therefore grant a rule that the sherifi of West Chester pay over to the plaintiff in the first suit, the 1,800 dollars, the proceeds of the sale of the sloop Euphemia, remaining in his hands.

¶2Motion granted.

/18/johns/311 · .json · Public domain