Hickman v. Matlock

Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity

Hickman v. Matlock

1 Tenn. 252

Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity·Decided October 6, 1807·Published

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.

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

Pincite

1 Tenn. 252 (Hickman v. Matlock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.