7 Ark. 46 (Ark. 1846), Caudle v. Dare
|Citation:||7 Ark. 46|
|Opinion Judge:||Oldham, J.|
|Party Name:||CAUDLE, ADM' of POE, v. DARE & CARUTHERS.|
|Attorney:||W. Walker, for the Plaintiff. Batson, contra .|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Arkansas|
��������� Where an execution was levied upon personal property, the benefit of the appraisement act of 1846 claimed by defendant, the property failed to bring two-thirds of its appraised value when offered for sale by the sheriff, and was returned to defendant, the levy was not a satisfaction of the execution. Walker v. Bradley, 2 Ark. Rep. 578, cited .
���������And in such case the plaintiff was entitled to an alias execution to procure satisfaction of his judgment.
��������� Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Pope County .
���������John Caudle, as administrator of Joseph Poe, obtained judgment, in an action of debt, against Thomas J. Dare and Andrew N. Caruthers, in the circuit court of Pope county, at the October term, 1841.
���������On the 29th August 1842, an execution was issued upon the judgment to the sheriff of Pope county, returnable to the following term of the court. The sheriff levied it upon two horses and one jack, the defendants claimed the benefit of the appraisement act of 23d December 1840, and the property failing to bring two-thirds of its appraised value, when offered for sale by the sheriff, the sale was postponed under the provisions of the act, and the property returned to defendants.
���������On the 9th of November, 1843, an alias execution was issued, returnable to the March term of the court following. The sheriff levied the writ on lands of defendants, and advertised them for sale, but on the first day of the term to which the writ was returnable, and before the lands were sold, the court quashed the execution, on motion of defendants.
���������On the 27th of November, 1844, a pluries execution was issued, returnable to the following March term of the court, which the sheriff levied upon land. On the first day of the return term, defendants moved to quash the writ, which motion the court sustained, the plaintiff excepted, took bill of exceptions, and brought error.
��������� The circuit court most...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP