Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Ill. 246

Willoughby v. Dewey

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1872

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1872-01-15

Joseph Gillespie, Judge, presiding. This is an appeal from the May term of the Madison circuit court, 1871, brought, by consent, to the Central Grand Division of this court. It appears that Bisser and Bawson recovered two judgments against Jarvis, before Andrew Mills, a police magistrate, on which executions were issued December 26, 1868, and placed in the hands of Willoughby, a constable.

Relies on Prescott v. Wright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 2003

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1018721880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

Mr. Justice Sheldon

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2It was error to exclude from the jury the executions and the plaintiffs testimony.

¶3The executions were issued on the 26th day of December, 1868. They were levied by the constable on the 12 acres of wheat in question, on the 4th day of March, 1869, which was before their return day.

¶4There not being time in which to give 10 days notice, in order to sell in the lifetime of the executions, the constable, under the mistaken idea that he had no authority to go on and complete the sale after the return day of the executions, returned them to the justice, and applied for alias executions, in order to sell the property, and the justice issued two alias executions in the ordinary form, reciting that they were issued to enable the constable to sell the property levied upon. The' constable made return on the alias executions that he levied them on the property and sold it on the 15th day of March, 1869, to the defendant.

¶5After the time when an execution is to be returned, it can not be executed by taking the property of the debtor. But if the officer has begun to execute the execution by a levy, at any time before it is returnable, he may complete the service after it is returnable, and this, whether he retains the writ or has returned it—and, in the latter event, no alias execution or writ of venditioni exponas is necessary. The latter confers upon the officer no new authority; it only compels him to do that which it was his duty to do. It is the duty of the officer, when once he has made the levy, no matter what becomes of the execution, to go on with the sale, and bring the money into court. Phillips et al. v. Dana, 3 Scam. 551 ; Prescott v. Wright, 6 Mass. 20.

¶6The alias executions, then, were without any legal effect. The original executions having been levied in their lifetime, there was power to sell under them. The execution of the writ is an entire thing. The completion of the service shall have relation to the time when it commenced.

¶7The judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded.

¶8Judgment reversed.

/63/ill/246 · .json · Public domain