¶1We must be consistent in our determinations, otherwise the utmost uncertainty would ensue. A sheriff’ levying on a debtor’s personal estate is an act of notoriety, and is not to be compared to the case of a private bill of sale, which is generally transacted in secret. Our own customs must govern with respect to executions and the effects of a levy on goods not removed. If a sheriff here would insist on removing goods immediately *525after they were levied on, though security was offered for their being produced when demanded, it would create a just and general outcry against his cruelty. The cases of Hartman v. M’Dougall are precisely in point, and binding on us. Wherefore, let the surplus of the property, after paying the costs of sale, be paid over to the first execution creditor.
2 Yeates 524
Perit v. Wallis
Decided December 15, 1799
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1799-12-15
A Testatum fieri facias issued in this cause, to Northumberland county, returnable to March term 1797, on which the defendants’ real personal property was leived. A venditioni exponas issued to September term 1797, returned “no buyers’” An alias venditioni issued to September term 1798, returned “ sale postponed at the plaintiff’s risk,” and a pl/wries venditioni afterwards issued to last September term.
Decided 1799-12-15