King v. Moore

6 Ala. 160
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1844
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 Ala. 160 (King v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
King v. Moore, 6 Ala. 160 (Ala. 1844).

Opinion

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

-In Zurcher v. Magee, [2 Ala. Rep. 253,] we held, that money collected by a sheriff was not subject to an attachment against the plaintiff in the execution; but the principle of that case is supposed not to govern this. One reason why money, in this condition, cannot be reached, is, that it is in the custody of the law; and it would be greatly inconvenient to allow the final process of courts to be affected by other proceedings not under control of the parties to the execution. This reason does not apply to the excess which oftentimes must, necessarily, remain with the executive officer, after satisfying the [161]*161plaintiff's demands. The officer is the agent appointed by the law, to sell the property of the defendant; and if, in the dischage of this duty, a sum of money remains with him, it is the money of the defendant, in no way distinguishable from any other case of agency. Nor does the circumstance, that a statute authorizes the defendant, when his money is improperly detained from him, to proceed summarily against the officer, bring the case within the principle which exempts money, in custodia legis, from attachment, because no process is meddled with; nor can any injurious consequences flow from considering it in the same view as any other money in the hands of an agent.'

Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

Related

Lightner v. Steinagel
33 Ill. 510 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Ala. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-moore-ala-1844.