Fierding Courts

Ancient Gothic courts "in the lowest instance." So called because four were instituted within every superior district or hundred. Their jurisdiction was limited within forty shillings, or three marks. 3 Steph. Comm. 393; 3 Bl. Comm. 84; Stiernh. de Jur. Goth. lib. 1, c. 2. FIERI FACIAS (Lat. that you cause to be made).

In practice. A writ directing the sheriff to cause to be made of the goods and chattels of the judgment debtor the sum or debt recovered. It receives its name from the Latin words in the writ, used when legal proceedings were conducted in Latin (quod fieri facias de bonis et catallis, that you cause to be made of the goods and chattels). It is the form of execution in common use where the judgment debtor has personal property.

Ancient Gothic courts “in the lowest instance;” so called because four were instituted within every superior district or hundred. Their jurisdiction was limited within forty shillings, or three marks; 3 Steph. Com. 893; 3 Bla. Com. 34; Stiernhook, De Jure Goth. L 1, c. 2. FIERI FACIAS (Lat. that you cause to be made). A writ directing the sheriff to cause to be made of the goods and chattels of the judgment-debtor the sum or debt recovered. It receives Its name from the Latin words In the writ (quod fieri facias de bonis et catallis, that you cause to be made of the goods and chattels). It is the form of execution in common use in levying upon the Judgment-debtor's personal property. The foundation of this writ is a judgment for debt or damages; and the party who has recovered such a judgment is generally entitled to it, unless he is delayed by a stay of execution which the law allows in certain cases after the rendition of the judgment, or by proceedings in error. The execution, being founded on the judgment, must, of course, follow and be warranted by it; 2 Sound. 72 h, k; Bingh. Judg. Hence, where there is more than one plaintiff or defendant, it must be in the name of all the plaintiffs against all the defendants; 6 Term 625. It is either for the plaintiff or the defendant. When it is against an executor or administrator for a liability of the testator or intestate, it is conformable to the judgment, and must be only against the goods of the deceased, unless the defendant has made himself personally liable by his false pleading, in which case the judgment is de ionis teatatoris, et ai non, de bonia propriia; Todd v. Todd’s Ex’rs, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 453; Swearinger’s Ex’r v. Pendleton’s BX’r, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 394; Lansing v. Lansing’s Ex’x, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 502; Burnside V. Green, 3 N. C. 112. At common law, the writ bound the goods of the defendant or party against whom it was issued, from the teste day; by which is to be understood that the writ bound the property against the party himself, and all claiming by assignment from or by representation under lilm; 4 East 538; so that a sale by the defendant of his goods to a bona fide purchaser did not protect them from a fieri fcciaa tested before, although not issued or delivered to the sheriff till after the sale; Cro. Eliz. 174; Cro. Jac. 451; 1 Sid. 271; but by the statute of frauds, 29 Car. II. c. 3, § 16, it was enacted “that no writ or fieri faciaa, or other writ of execution, shall bind the property of the goods of the party against whom such writ of execution Issued forth, but from the time that such writ shall be delivered to the sheriff,’’ etc., who must “indorse upon the back thereof the day of the month and year whereon he or they received the same;’’ and the same or similar provisions have been enacted in most of the states; Lewis v. Smith, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 157; Beals v. Guernsey, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 446, 5 Am. Dec. 348; Layton v. Steel, 3 Harr. (Del.) 512; State v. Blundln, 32 Mo. 387. The property in the goods is not altered,. but remains in the defendant until the actual execution of the writ; Wats. Sher. 176. The execution of the writ is made by levying upon the goods and chattels of the defendant or party against whom it is issued; and, in general, seizing a part of the goods in the name of the whole on the premises is a good seizure of the whole; 1 Ld. Raym. 725; Bullitt’s Ex’rs v. Winston, 1 Munf. (Va.) 209; Van Wyck v. Pine, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 666; Barham v. Massey, 27 N. C. 192; Cobb v. Cage, 7 Ala. 619. But see Burchard V. Rees, 1 Whart (Pa.) 377; Lloyd v. Wyckoff, 11 N. J. L. 218. It may be executed at any time before and on the return-day; Towns V. Harris, 13 Tex. 607; but not on Sunday, where it is forbidden by statute (29 Car. II. c. 7, which has been substantially followed in the United States); Watson, I sheriff may execute a fi. la, tested in his lifetime, and under it seize his goods in the I bands of his executor or administrator; Wats. Sher. 173. The sheriff cannot break the outer door of a house for the purpose of executing a fieri faciaa; 6 Co. 92; nor unlatch an outer door; Cur Us V. Hubbard, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 437, 40 Am. Dec. 292; nor can a window be broken for this purpose; W, Jones 429. He may, however, enter the house, if it be open, and, being once lawfully entered, he may break open an inner door or chest to seize the goods of the defendant, even without any request to open them; 4 Taunt. 619; 3 B. & P. 223; Cowp. 1; Troub. & H. Pr. 1116. Although the sheriff is authorized to enter the house of the party to search for goods, he cannot enter that of a stranger for that purpose, without being guilty of a trespass, unless the defendant’s goods are actually in the house,; Comyns, Dig. Execution (C 5). The sheriff may break the outer door of a barn; 1 Sid. 186; 1 Kebl. 089; or of a store disconnected with the dwelling-house and forming no part of the curtilage; Haggerty v. Wilbur, 10 Johns. (N. y.) 287, 8 Am. Dec. 321. See 1 Sm. L. Cas., 9th Am. ed. 228, with note on the subject; Breaking. At common law a fl, fa. did not authorize a sheriff to seize bank-bills, checks, or promissory notes: but it is otherwise now, by stab 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, § 12, and 3 & 4 Viet, c. 82; and this is now the law of many of the states; Steele v. Brown, 2 Va. Cas. 246; Means v, Vance, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 39; Reno V. Wilson, Ilempst. 91, Fed. Cas. No. 11,700a; Spencer V. Blalsdell, 4 N. H. 198, 17 Am. Dec. 412; Appeal of Herron, 29 Pa. 240. So money may be taken; Means v. Vance, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 39; Turner v. Fendall, 1 Cra. (U. S.) 117, 2 L. Ed. 53; Handy v. Dobbin, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 220. The writ applies generally to goods and chattels, but the common-law rules as to what may be taken are very much extended. For the form of the writ, see 3 Sharsw. Bla. Com. App. xxvll.; as to proceeding in equity in aid of executions at law, see Creditors’ Bill. See, generally, Murfree; Freeman, Executions, ch. X; Watson, Sheriff; Execution; Levy; Sheriff. FIERI FECI (L. Lat.). In Practice. The return which the sheriff or other proper officer makes to certain writs, signifying, “I have caused to be made.” When the officer has made this return, a rule may be obtained upon him after the return-day, to pay the money into court, and, if he withholds payment, an action of debt may be bad on the return, or assumpsit for money had and received may be sustained against him; Dumond’s Adm’rs v. Carpenter, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 183. ment, consisting of a fifteenth part of the personal property In every township, borough, and city in the kingdom. In the eighth year of EJdward III. the valuation of the kingdom was fixed and a record made In the exchequer of the amount (twenty-nine thousand pounds). This valuation was not Increased as the property in the kingdom increased in value; whence the name came in time to be a great misnomer. Co. 2d Inst. 77; 1 Poll. & Haiti. 604; 2 Bla. Com. 309; Cowell.

Ancient Gothie courts of an inferior jurisdiction, se called because four were instituted within every inferior district or hundred. 3 Bl. Comm. 34,

Ancient Gothic courts of an inferior jurisdiction, so called because four were instituted within every inferior district or hundred. 3 Bl, Com. 34. Stiemhook de Jur, Goth. lib. 1, c. 2, cited ibid.