¶1I concur in reversing the judgment on the ground that, by the act of the sheriff in causing the wheat to be sold at private sale, with the concurrence of the attaching creditors and the consequent abandonment of the possession of the same, the lieu of the levy was lost, and the sheriff became a trespasser ah initio; but I am not prepared to say that, under the facts shown in evidence, there was no levy of the writ.
7 Ill. App. 422
Culver v. Rumsey
Decided November 8, 1880
Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1880-11-08
<p>1. Attachment — Htjst be a valid levy. — Proceedings by attachment derive their validity wholly from the statute,which in all essential particulars must be complied with. A valid levy upon pxoperiy by the writ of attachment is essential to the jurisdiction of the coart over the subject-matter.</p> <p>2. Property must be in view oe the attaching officer. — In order to a valid levy of a writ of attachment, the property must be in view of the attaching officer. An indorsement of a levy, made when the property is miles . away from the officer making the levy, is a nullity.</p> <p>3. Irregular levy — Not aided by placing custodian over property. — Where an officer served a writ of attachment by indorsing a levy upon the writ, the property not being in the presence of the officer, the fact that the officer, two days after such levy, saw the property in the charge of a custodian whom he had placed over the property, will not aid the defect in the levy made by such indorsement.</p> <p>4. Trespass ab initio. — Where a levy of an attachment writ is made in an illegal or unauthorized manner, the sheriff and plaintiffs in attachment are liable as trespassers ab initio for any subsequent disposition they may make of the property siezed under the attachment proceedings.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1984
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1880-11-08
View the full empirical analysis of this case →