Hartwell v. Bissell

17 Johns. 128
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1819·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By the 9th section of the “ Act for the assessment and collection of taxes,” (2 N. R. L. 512. sess. 36. ch. 52. 1 Rev. Stat. 397. 398.) the collector is authorized and required, in case of refusal or neglect to pay the taxes, to levy the same by distress, and sale of the goods and chattels of the person who ought to pay the same, or of any goods or chattels in his or her possession.” The rye, having been levied upon by the sheriff, under the Ji. fa,, though it was not then sold, was in the custody of the law, and not in the possession of L. B. The collector, therefore, had no right to sell it, and the purchaser under him acquired no title. We are of opinion that the judgment of the court below ought to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Hartwell v. Bissell, 17 Johns. 128 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1819).

17 Johns. 128 (Hartwell v. Bissell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lathem & Sons v. Stringer
87 S.E. 840 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Fulghum v. Williams Co.
40 S.E. 695 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
McClellan v. Krall
43 Kan. 216 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1890)
Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Conner
11 Daly 326 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1883)
Seymour v. Newton
24 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 30 (New York Supreme Court, 1879)
Green v. Armstrong
1 Denio 550 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1845)