Churchill v. Warren

2 N.H. 298
Superior Court of New Hampshire·Decided November 15, 1820·Published

Opinion

Woodbury, J.,

remarked, that, on authority, there seemed to be some doubt concerning the questions presented by this statement. Because the following cases appear to countenance an idea, that a mere seizure of property on execution divests the title of the debtor. 1 Mod. 30.-1 Levinz. 282.—1 Vent. 52.-6 Mod. 293.—Holt 646.—1 Salk. 323.-3 Salk. 159.—4 Mass. Rep. 403.—2 ditto 517.

But the observations in those cases upon this point are mostly obiter dicta ; and seem contradicted by other authorities. 16 East 274.—2 Equi. Cases Ab. 381.—14 Mass. Rep. 475.-4 East 523.-7 Mass. Rep. 506—9 ditto 105.—8 John. 520.—3 Camp. N. P. 347.—1 Brodwick & Bing. 370, Swain vs. Morland.—1 Barn. & Ald. 157, Lear vs. Edmunds.

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

Churchill v. Warren, 2 N.H. 298 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1820).

2 N.H. 298 (Churchill v. Warren) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Beals v. Allen
18 Johns. 363 (New York Supreme Court, 1820)