¶1held that as it did not appear that the sheriff at the time of the levy had notice of the existence of the mortgage, and as the interest of the defendants in the machines *136was very trifling, the forfeiture under the mortgage occurring w^hjn sjxteen days after the levy made, when the property absolutely vested in the mortgagee, 1 Powell on Mortgages, 3, ,7 Cowen, 290, the sheriff could not be considered as chargeable with neglect of duty in not' having sold previous to the forfeiture, and therefore they gave judgment for him.
7 Wend. 135
Smith v. Dunning
Decided May 15, 1831
New York Supreme Court · decided 1831-05-15
This was an action on the case against the sheriff of Sara-toga, for a false return of nulla bona on afi.fa. at the suit of the plaintiffs against one Royce, for $101,30. The execution was delivered to the sheriff on the ninth day of May, 1829, returnable on the sixeeenth of the same month. On the eleventh day of May the sheriff levied on two carding machines, the property of the defendant.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1847
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1831-05-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →