Hill v. McCulloch

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hill v. McCulloch

20 Ga. 637

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 15, 1856

DocketNo. 118

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Ga. 637 (Hill v. McCulloch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. McCulloch, 20 Ga. 637 (Ga. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] Is the assignment of an execution by the plaintiff to the Sheriff valid ?

The Act of 1829, authorizing the transfer of executions, contains no restriction as to Sheriffs. The Sheriff .is inhibited, by law, from purchasing property at his own sale; but he is not forbidden to take a transfer of a fi. fa.

Decision's are read from New York and other States, to the effect that this cannot be done, because it is against public policy. The Legislature, and not the Courts, must be the judges as to this matter. But why is this contrary to public policy ? The plaintiffs cannot be hurt by it; for they do it voluntarily. Defendants are favored by getting further time. By a Statute of this State, where the Sheriff is made liable for an escape, he is entitled to control the fi. fa. to reimburse himself out of the defendant’s property. This is a strong authority to indicate the legislative will as to the policy of such assignments.

In some parts of the State the practice has always been, to allow executions to be kept open for the benefit of the Sheriff, by order of Court, where the officer has been compelled to pay them.

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

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] Is the assignment of an execution by the plaintiff to the Sheriff valid ?

The Act of 1829, authorizing the transfer of executions, contains no restriction as to Sheriffs. The Sheriff .is inhibited, by law, from purchasing property at his own sale; but he is not forbidden to take a transfer of a fi. fa.

Decision's are read from New York and other States, to the effect that this cannot be done, because it is against public policy. The Legislature, and not the Courts, must be the judges as to this matter. But why is this contrary to public policy ? The plaintiffs cannot be hurt by it; for they do it voluntarily. Defendants are favored by getting further time. By a Statute of this State, where the Sheriff is made liable for an escape, he is entitled to control the fi. fa. to reimburse himself out of the defendant’s property. This is a strong authority to indicate the legislative will as to the policy of such assignments.

In some parts of the State the practice has always been, to allow executions to be kept open for the benefit of the Sheriff, by order of Court, where the officer has been compelled to pay them.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ga. 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-mcculloch-ga-1856.