3 Cow. 30
Decided August 15, 1824
New York Supreme Court · decided 1824-08-15
Judgment being against the defendant, who had not puf in special bail, the plaintiff issued a fi- fa- returnable at the present term, with which the Sheriff called on the defendant, xvho said he had no personal property to satisfy it, but he had real estate, which he pointed out to the Sheriff. This real estate being heavily encumbered by previous judgments, &c. the plaintiff took back the fi- fa. and gave the Sheriff a ca. sa. which he executed.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1887
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1824-08-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1Had there been no effort, on the part of the Sheriff, to execute this fi. fa. it would be, at least, questionable whether the plaintiff might not have withdrawn it and taken his ca. sa. But here was a virtual levy of the fi. fa. after which it could not be withdrawn, its execution should have been completed.
¶2Rule accordingly.
¶312) Vid. Sloan v. Wattles, 13 John. 158;