Hickman v. Matlock

Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity

Hickman v. Matlock

1 Tenn. 252

CourtTennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity

DecidedOctober 6, 1807

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Tenn. 252 (Hickman v. Matlock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hickman v. Matlock, 1 Tenn. 252 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1807).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment must be affirmed. The duty of a sheriff, upon a fi. fa. was to pay the balance into court, or hold it subject to the claim of Mountflorence, unless it had been taken out of his hands by order of court. He did not collect the money by execution of the plaintiff, therefore it is not subject to his demand in this way. See Wils. ed. Bac. Ab. 715. n. 1. Cr. 117. But on suggestion of the parties it was continued on advisement.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment must be affirmed. The duty of a sheriff, upon a fi. fa. was to pay the balance into court, or hold it subject to the claim of Mountflorence, unless it had been taken out of his hands by order of court. He did not collect the money by execution of the plaintiff, therefore it is not subject to his demand in this way. See Wils. ed. Bac. Ab. 715. n. 1. Cr. 117. But on suggestion of the parties it was continued on advisement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Tenn. 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickman-v-matlock-tennsuperct-1807.