Miller v. Adsit

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Miller v. Adsit

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 407

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 407 (Miller v. Adsit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Adsit, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 407 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas, holding that the receiptor stood in the relation of surety to the defendant in the execution, and as such was not entitled to sustain the action. On error

The Court of Errors reversed both judgments; holding that replevin may be maintained by a receiptor of goods where he is bound to deliver them by a specific day, or pay the amount of the execution under which the levy was made; although the property be left by him in the possession of the defendant in the execution.

The Chancellor, Walworth, dissented, holding “ that the plaintiff in the case not having the actual possession, could not maintain replevin; but conceding that a receiptor has an interest in the property, and may maintain trespass against a wrong doer, who takes it from his actual possession; or case against any one who does an injury to the property.”

Judgment reversed ; 16 to 5.

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas, holding that the receiptor stood in the relation of surety to the defendant in the execution, and as such was not entitled to sustain the action. On error

The Court of Errors reversed both judgments; holding that replevin may be maintained by a receiptor of goods where he is bound to deliver them by a specific day, or pay the amount of the execution under which the levy was made; although the property be left by him in the possession of the defendant in the execution.

The Chancellor, Walworth, dissented, holding “ that the plaintiff in the case not having the actual possession, could not maintain replevin; but conceding that a receiptor has an interest in the property, and may maintain trespass against a wrong doer, who takes it from his actual possession; or case against any one who does an injury to the property.”

Judgment reversed ; 16 to 5.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-adsit-nycterr-1799.