Bixby v. Rowe

2 Mich. N.P. 152
CourtCircuit Court of the 36th Circuit of Michigan
DecidedApril 15, 1871
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Mich. N.P. 152 (Bixby v. Rowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 36th Circuit of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bixby v. Rowe, 2 Mich. N.P. 152 (Mich. Super. Ct. 1871).

Opinion

By the Court,

Brown, J.

Can a Sheriff amend his certificate of sale of real estate; and if he can, will the Court permit him to do so, after his term of office has expired and he is no longer holding that office ?

J. W. Brees°, for the motion, contends that it is settled that a Sheriff may amend his certificate of sale of real estate by leave of the Court. 1 Doug. Mich. R., 42. This was an attachment suit and judgment by default, and the defendants movecl to set aside the judgment and all subsequent proceedings, for irregularities, and the Court refused the motion, assigning as one ground therefor that the Sheriff had a right to amend his return in the Circuit Court. 2 C Laws, page 1201, § 4418.

It has been held that a Sheriff may amend his certificate of sale whore he has omitted to describe the parcel sold. 1 Cowen, 430.

He may also strike out a parcel which should not have been sold. 8 Howard’s Pr., 79. A casé in 1 Cowen, 218, gives a form of order of amendment and is very similar to the present case, showing that the late Sheriff may make an amendment by leave of the Court.

The recitals in a Sheriff’s deed are amendable. 13 Wend., 29, and so of variance between the judgment and execution. 4 Wend., 462.

There seems to be abundant authority to the effect that a Sheriff who made the sale or his successor in office may make a deed. 2 C. Laws, page 937, § 3151; 3 Mich., 436; 3 Cowen, 75.

As to when a Sheriff may complete execution process in his hands, see 1 C. L., page 210, § 431; page 207, § 418.

As to re-sale on execution by Sheriff, after he. had gone out of office, see 5 Hill, 228; 4 Barb., 180.

[154]*154•This motion is made on the part of the plaintiffs in execution, and the question of laches does not arise.

The motion is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Averill v. Wilson
4 Barb. 180 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Jackson ex dem. Ten Eyck v. Walker
4 Wend. 462 (New York Supreme Court, 1830)
Brown v. H. & E. T. Betts
13 Wend. 29 (New York Supreme Court, 1834)
Whipple v. Farrar
3 Mich. 436 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1855)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Mich. N.P. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bixby-v-rowe-micirct36-1871.