¶1As the plaintiff below never had possession of the hay, which was on the defendant’s ground at the time of the alleged injury, he was bound, at least, to show a right of property. The proof of a purchase at auction, at a constable’s sale, without showing the au*536thorny under which the constable acted, was not enough. If the constable had no authority to sell the hay, the vendee had no title. The books have gone so far as to say, tlíat a vendee under a lawful judgment and execution, shall not lose his property, upon a reversal of the judgment by writ of error. This was so ruled in Manning's case, (8 Co. 96. b.) But no case admits a title in the purchaser, when the sheriff acted without authority. On this ground the judgment below must be reversed.
7 Johns. 535
Carter v. Simpson
Decided February 15, 1811
New York Supreme Court · decided 1811-02-15
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The return stated that Simpson sued Carter before the ^ » ■* e justice, and declared for damage done to his hay, by the cattle of the defendant, which the defendant turned into the field where the hay was stacked, and in pulling down ' and carrying away the fence around the stack, &c. The defendant pleaded not guilty; and the cause was tried by a jury.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1811-02-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1874
2 state decisions
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 →