Milliken v. Selye
This text of 6 Hill & Den. 623 (Milliken v. Selye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plea is bad for the reason assigned in the special cause of demurrer. The statute forbids the execution of a writ of replevin in any case, unless the requisite affidavit and bond be delivered to the sheriff. A compliance with the statute is in the nature of a condition precedent [624]*624to the right of serving the writ; and if there he no compliance, the writ is a nullity. (2 R. S. 523, § 7; Berrien v. Westervelt, 12 Wend. 194.)
Independently of this objection, the plea was probably well enough. After the taking by virtue of a writ of» replevin, the property is to be deemed in custodio/m legis, and therefore not liable to distress; (Co. Lit. 476; Willes, 136 ; Comyn's Land. Ten. 377;) and a reasonable time is allowed to remove it. (Gilbert v. Moody, 17 Wend. 358.)
Judgment for the defendants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 Hill & Den. 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milliken-v-selye-nysupct-1844.