Hubert v. Williams

Mississippi Supreme Court

Hubert v. Williams

1 Miss. 175

DecidedDecember 15, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Miss. 175 (Hubert v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hubert v. Williams, 1 Miss. 175 (Mich. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT — by the

Hon. POWHATTAN ELLIS.

Writ of error sued out to Lawrence circuit court. Execution issuing after a party is dead, and before revival, is irregular, as we have heretofore decided, and if we suffer such executions to stand, great injustice may he done to the rights of the creditors. And the reason given by Lord Kenyon is — The moment a party is dead, the rights of his creditors are fixed. A judgment debt is a debt of a superior nature, and when docketed is to be paid before simple contract debts. The defendant’s legal representatives could have no notice of this judgment, and might be paying debts of an inferior nature which, upon the suggestion of adevastavit, and issuing of a sci fa, would render him liable for the payment of all such debts de bonis propriis. 6th Term, R. 369 — 2 Strange 882,7th Term R. 24.

Judgment of the court below reversed, and venire facias denovo awarded.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT — by the

Hon. POWHATTAN ELLIS.

Writ of error sued out to Lawrence circuit court. Execution issuing after a party is dead, and before revival, is irregular, as we have heretofore decided, and if we suffer such executions to stand, great injustice may he done to the rights of the creditors. And the reason given by Lord Kenyon is — The moment a party is dead, the rights of his creditors are fixed. A judgment debt is a debt of a superior nature, and when docketed is to be paid before simple contract debts. The defendant’s legal representatives could have no notice of this judgment, and might be paying debts of an inferior nature which, upon the suggestion of adevastavit, and issuing of a sci fa, would render him liable for the payment of all such debts de bonis propriis. 6th Term, R. 369 — 2 Strange 882,7th Term R. 24.

Judgment of the court below reversed, and venire facias denovo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Miss. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubert-v-williams-miss-1824.