Milliken v. Selye

6 Hill & Den. 623
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Milliken v. Selye. Read the opinion of the Court — 3 Denio 54
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1844·Published

Opinion

By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.

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

Milliken v. Selye, 6 Hill & Den. 623 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1844).

6 Hill & Den. 623 (Milliken v. Selye) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Berrien v. Westervelt
12 Wend. 194 (New York Supreme Court, 1834)