Canan v. Carryell

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Canan v. Carryell

1 N.J.L. 3

DecidedApril 15, 1790

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.J.L. 3 (Canan v. Carryell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canan v. Carryell, 1 N.J.L. 3 (N.J. 1790).

Pincite

Opinion

[4]*4An attachment had been sued out in the year 1774, against one Hutchinson, an absconding debtor, under the act of December 16th, 1748. Allison’s Laws of N. J., 172. In 1775 the auditors reported £19 17s. Id; due to plaintiff from Hutchinson. Proceedings were afterwards had against Ely, the garnishee, but no'inquisition had been taken, as directed by the seventh section of the act, to ascertain the precise sum due. After Ely’s death a soi.fa. issued against Carryell, his administrator, to revive (he judgment, upon which soi. fa. judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, in November, 1789, and afi.fa. was sued out against the goods and lands of Ely, for the amount of the sum due on the judgment originally obtained against Hutchinson.

This was an application to the court by the heir of Ely, whose property was affected by the execution, to have it set aside for irregularity.

The court, after a hearing, held the execution irregular, and set it aside. They held, also, that as the property of the heir was or might be affected by this execution, it was competent for him to make this application.

Cited in Reed v. Bainbridge, 1 South. 354; Barrow v. Bispham, 6 Halst. 140 ; Sloan v. Somers, 2 Gr. 512.

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

[4]*4An attachment had been sued out in the year 1774, against one Hutchinson, an absconding debtor, under the act of December 16th, 1748. Allison’s Laws of N. J., 172. In 1775 the auditors reported £19 17s. Id; due to plaintiff from Hutchinson. Proceedings were afterwards had against Ely, the garnishee, but no'inquisition had been taken, as directed by the seventh section of the act, to ascertain the precise sum due. After Ely’s death a soi.fa. issued against Carryell, his administrator, to revive (he judgment, upon which soi. fa. judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, in November, 1789, and afi.fa. was sued out against the goods and lands of Ely, for the amount of the sum due on the judgment originally obtained against Hutchinson.

This was an application to the court by the heir of Ely, whose property was affected by the execution, to have it set aside for irregularity.

The court, after a hearing, held the execution irregular, and set it aside. They held, also, that as the property of the heir was or might be affected by this execution, it was competent for him to make this application.

Cited in Reed v. Bainbridge, 1 South. 354; Barrow v. Bispham, 6 Halst. 140 ; Sloan v. Somers, 2 Gr. 512.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.J.L. 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canan-v-carryell-nj-1790.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack