Parker v. Parker

Supreme Court of Vermont

Parker v. Parker

54 Vt. 341

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJanuary 15, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 Vt. 341 (Parker v. Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. Parker, 54 Vt. 341 (Vt. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Taft, J.

This case is a petition under s. 1596, R. L. to vacate the levy of an execution extended upon real estate. The execution was not recorded in the town clerk’s office, nor returned to the office of the clerk signing it, within sixty days from the date of its issue. The levy was therefore void ; cases cited in Rob. Dig. 317, s. 121. The question arises, whether proceedings under s. 1596, R. L., are,applicable to a levy that is void. The statute extends to cases where “ the extent or levy is irregular, informal, or not made according to law, so that the title derived therefrom is doubtful ” ; and provides that this court may on petition, vacate such extent, and issue execution anew. We think that this section was intended to provide a remedy for such defects in the proceedings as render the title under a levy doubtful. It is immaterial whether such defects appear upon the face of the levy or not. [343]*343Hyde v. Taylor, 19 Vt. 599; Briggs v. Green, 33 Vt. 565; and has no application to those cases that are defective in substance as to the subject-matter. Bell v. Roberts, 13 Vt. 582 ; Hopkins v. Hayward, 34 Vt. 474. In case of a levy absolutely void, it cannot be said that the title is doubtful; there is no title ; none passes under such a levy. ' Section 1598, R. L. provides that where no petition under s. 1596, is brought to vacate the extent and issue execution anew, within two years from the time the extent was returned, that the extent shall be valid to convey the title the debtor had in the premises, at the timé of the extent, and conclusive evidence of the title in such estate, against the debtor and his representatives. The necessary result of holding that we have jurisdiction in this case, and granting the prayer of the petitioner, is to hold that all levies, void absolutely, those that convey no title whatever, after the lapse of two yéars, become, as against the debtor and his representatives, perfectly good, and pass the estate to the creditor, notwithstanding intervening conveyances and attachments. To do this would be going beyond the statute; and to so hold, independent of the statute, would be in conflict with adjudications, that lapse of time of itself, does not cure a void levy.

Petition dismissed with cost.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Taft, J.

This case is a petition under s. 1596, R. L. to vacate the levy of an execution extended upon real estate. The execution was not recorded in the town clerk’s office, nor returned to the office of the clerk signing it, within sixty days from the date of its issue. The levy was therefore void ; cases cited in Rob. Dig. 317, s. 121. The question arises, whether proceedings under s. 1596, R. L., are,applicable to a levy that is void. The statute extends to cases where “ the extent or levy is irregular, informal, or not made according to law, so that the title derived therefrom is doubtful ” ; and provides that this court may on petition, vacate such extent, and issue execution anew. We think that this section was intended to provide a remedy for such defects in the proceedings as render the title under a levy doubtful. It is immaterial whether such defects appear upon the face of the levy or not. [343]*343Hyde v. Taylor, 19 Vt. 599; Briggs v. Green, 33 Vt. 565; and has no application to those cases that are defective in substance as to the subject-matter. Bell v. Roberts, 13 Vt. 582 ; Hopkins v. Hayward, 34 Vt. 474. In case of a levy absolutely void, it cannot be said that the title is doubtful; there is no title ; none passes under such a levy. ' Section 1598, R. L. provides that where no petition under s. 1596, is brought to vacate the extent and issue execution anew, within two years from the time the extent was returned, that the extent shall be valid to convey the title the debtor had in the premises, at the timé of the extent, and conclusive evidence of the title in such estate, against the debtor and his representatives. The necessary result of holding that we have jurisdiction in this case, and granting the prayer of the petitioner, is to hold that all levies, void absolutely, those that convey no title whatever, after the lapse of two yéars, become, as against the debtor and his representatives, perfectly good, and pass the estate to the creditor, notwithstanding intervening conveyances and attachments. To do this would be going beyond the statute; and to so hold, independent of the statute, would be in conflict with adjudications, that lapse of time of itself, does not cure a void levy.

Petition dismissed with cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Vt. 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-parker-vt-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack