5 Ohio 178 (Ohio 1831), Norton v. Beaver

Citation:5 Ohio 178
Opinion Judge:LANE, Judge.
Party Name:DANIEL L. NORTON v. JOHN BEAVER, H. CURTIS, AND OTHERS
Attorney:GODDARD for the complainant, and H. STANBERY for the respondent.
Court:Supreme Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 178

5 Ohio 178 (Ohio 1831)

DANIEL L. NORTON

v.

JOHN BEAVER, H. CURTIS, AND OTHERS

Supreme Court of Ohio

December, 1831

THIS case was adjourned here for decision from the county of Knox. It was a bill in chancery by Norton, who had purchased certain lots of land under execution to enjoin a sale under an elder judgment. The material facts of the case are as follows:

In November, 1819, Beaver recovered a judgment against S. C. Smith for three hundred and sixty-two dollars, and execution was sued out in December, 1818, and levied upon three hundred and twenty acres of land, appraised to one thousand dollars, and duly returned not sold for want of bidders. A vendi. exp. was issued to August, 1819, and was returned not sold; another to February, 1820, was returned the same. No further execution issued until after the lapse of five years. In June, 1826, the judgment was revived by sci. fa. The appraisement of the land previously levied upon was set aside and another vendi. exp. issued; a new appraisement was made, and a sale made to the defendant, Curtis, for two hundred and fifteen dollars.

In November, 1820, Norton, the complainant, purchased of S. C. Smith lot No. 115, in the town of Mount Vernon, for which he paid a valuable consideration and obtained a conveyance.

In May, 1828, an alias fi. fa. was sued out upon Beaver's judgment, and levied upon the lot purchased by Norton. The bill was brought to restrain the parties from effecting a sale.

SYLLABUS

Court of equity has jurisdiction to enjoin sale on execution of real estate, where sale confers no title, but may cast a cloud on that of complainant.

Where judgment creditor's levy is not set aside, and a new levy made under section 16 of the execution law of February, 1822, his lien is not taken away as against a purchaser from a judgment debtor.

When a dormant judgment is revived, its lien against real estate is not so revived as to prejudice a purchaser from the judgment debtor, made before the judgment became dormant, but subsisting while it was so dormant.

This case was argued in open court, by GODDARD for the complainant, and H. STANBERY for the respondent. The points made are noticed in the opinion of the court.

OPINION

LANE, Judge.

Page 179

In the case of the Bank of the United States v. Schultz, 2 Ohio 495, this court decided unanimously...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP