|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE. 637
the Court of Chancery, might be discharged. In doing which,
however, great care would be taken to make him as liable as if he
had been kept in execution for the debt; and particularly, that he
should be responsible for the sheriff's poundage fees, and for all
other incidental expenses, (k)
The act of Assembly has altered the law upon this subject so
far as, that upon the service of the injunction the sheriff must dis-
charge a defendant held in custody under a capias ad satisfacien-
dum. (l) But it is perfectly manifest from the language of this
act, that it was not the intention of the Legislature thereby to im-
pair the rights of the sheriff; or to lessen the liability of the defen-
dant in any other respect whatever; and, consequently, as we have
seen, although the defendant was discharged from custody, yet the
sheriff might recover his poundage fees in like manner as any
other fees, (m)
Upon the same principles it was the established law, that if a
fieri facias had been levied upon the property of the defendant be-
fore the sheriff was notified of the injunction, he could not proceed
to sell; but must return the fact of his having been so stayed, and
hold the property taken until the injunction was dissolved, or
otherwise disposed of. But after the dissolution of the injunction
the sheriff might proceed to sell, or he might be commanded to do
so by a venditioni exponas. (n)
A partial alteration of the law upon this subject has been made
by an act of Assembly which declares, that, where personal pro-
perty has been taken in execution, the sheriff, on being served
with an injunction, shall deliver it back to the party from whom it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(k) Franklyn v. Thomas, 3 Meriv. 234. —(Z) 1826, ch. 157. —(m) Howard e. The
Levy Court, 1 H. & J. 566. —(n) Blacklock v. Maddox, 2 Harris' Entries, 694;
Cockey v. Chapman, 2 Bland, 83, note; ———, 6 Peters, 658,
BOYCE v. BRADFORD. —February, 1720. —Mr. Daniel Dulany appears with liberty
to move for a dissolution of the injunction next court. And forasmuch as the com-
plainant has given good and sufficient security in forty-six thousand pounds of to-
bacco in the case here depending between the said complainant and defendant
Therefore Ordered, by the Chancellor, that Mr. Sabret Sollers, high sheriff of Cal-
vert county, let the complainant have liberty to make use of the tobacco in the said
sheriff's hands, as he the said Boyce shall see occasion. —July, 1821—Answer with
liberty to move for a dissolution of the injunction this court. —July, 1723. —Excep-
tions filed to the answer, to be argued last court. For answer this court—Argued
and adjudged good. —Ruled, that the defendant make a better answer, and pay the
complainant 800 pounds of tobacco, costs, as well on the overruling the exceptions
aforesaid, as for scandal in the answer alleged. Further answer to be filed accord-
ing to rate. —Chancery Proceedings, lib., P. L. fol. 568, 672, 887.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
