¶1The Court, (nem. con.) upon the authority of the case of Hamilton v. Russell, 1 Cranch, 309, instructed the jury that the sale was void as to creditors, unless the possession accompanied and followed the bill of sale.
¶2Verdict for the defendant.
3 D.C. 434
Moore v. Ringgold
Decided May 15, 1829
Replevin of a horse taken by the defendant, as marshal, in execution against Dunning, and found in his possession. The plaintiff claimed the property under a sale from Dunning, who testified that he sent the horse to Moore, with a bill of sale; that Moore sent him back to Dunning with the bill of sale, saying that as he had no other horse, he might keep him till he (Moore) should send for him.
Decided 1829-05-15