Nagle v. James

7 Abb. Pr. 234
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided May 15, 1858·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Woodruff, J.

—When anexecution is returned by the sheriff, before the period allowed by law within which to execute it, and this appears to have been done by request of the plaintiff, and not by the sheriff, upon his official responsibility for the truth of his return, the plaintiff cannot be said to have exhausted his ordinary remedy by legal process. In such cases the section allowing supplementary proceedings is not, in its proper construction, complied with.

The order is therefore discharged.

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

Nagle v. James, 7 Abb. Pr. 234 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1858).

7 Abb. Pr. 234 (Nagle v. James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Miller
29 Pa. D. & C. 282 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1937)