Lambert v. Paulding

18 Johns. 311
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1820·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The delivery of the fi. fa. in the s<u ? f Lambert and others, against the defendant, to th*' si> of the City and County of New-York, bound the gm-ti, of the defendant, then in his bailiwick; and the pi iinni-, in that execution, cannot be deprivtd/bf the lien on the sloop, which was then lying in New York, by the act of the defendant, in removing the vessel into another county. He would be liable to an action, at the suit of the sheriff, for so removing the property. We therefore grant a rule that the sherifi of West Chester pay over to the plaintiff in the first suit, the 1,800 dollars, the proceeds of the sale of the sloop Euphemia, remaining in his hands.

Motion granted.

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

Lambert v. Paulding, 18 Johns. 311 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1820).

18 Johns. 311 (Lambert v. Paulding) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Baker v. Hull
166 N.E. 175 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
Duffy v. Dawson
21 N.Y.S. 978 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)
Evans v. Walsh
41 N.J.L. 281 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1879)
In re Hull
12 F. Cas. 858 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York, 1877)
Stewart v. Beale
14 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 405 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Hathaway v. . Howell
54 N.Y. 97 (New York Court of Appeals, 1873)
Patterson v. Perry
10 Abb. Pr. 82 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1859)
Pierce & Moore v. Kingsmill & Bush
25 Barb. 631 (New York Supreme Court, 1857)
Rogers v. Dickey
6 Ill. 636 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1844)
Overton v. Perkins
8 Tenn. 659 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1828)
Marsh v. Lawrence
4 Cow. 461 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)