Parmelee v. Hitchcock

12 Wend. 96
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1834
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 12 Wend. 96 (Parmelee v. Hitchcock) 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.

Bluebook
Parmelee v. Hitchcock, 12 Wend. 96 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

Whether the sheriff is bound to execute an erroneous writ delivered to him, depends upon the question whether it is absolutely void, or only voidable ; and whether void or voidable depends upon the fact whether it is amendable. There can be no doubt that a sheriff is justified in executing any process from a court of general jurisdiction which is regular upon its face. Where an execution is delivered to him, he is not bound to inquire whether there is a judgment to support it, or whether the execution corresponds exactly with the judgment; if it is regular upon its face, it is his duty to execute it; if there is any irregularity or error in it, that affects the parties, not the ministerial officer. 5 Wendell, 170. 8 id. 546, 7.

This court has amended executions when varying from the judgment and when tested out of term, and held the sheriff responsible for an escape when the defendant in the execution was committed upon such process, 6 John. R. 100, 1 Cowen, 309, declaring that such process was voidable, not void. Voidable process is so at the election of the party affected by it, not the officer. The error in the execution in question was amendable, and has been amended. It was the duty of the defendant to have executed the writ.

Judgment for plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to plead on payment of costs.

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

Related

Mollineaux v. Mott
78 A.D. 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
State ex rel. Kenamore v. Wood
56 S.W. 474 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Berry v. Gates
56 N.E. 581 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Jones v. Goodbar
29 S.W. 462 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1895)
Bachelder Bros. v. Chaves
5 N.M. 562 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1891)
Bray v. McClury
55 Mo. 128 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1874)
Hardin v. Lee
51 Mo. 241 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1873)
Hunt v. Loucks
38 Cal. 372 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Bacon v. . Cropsey
7 N.Y. 195 (New York Court of Appeals, 1852)
Paton v. Westervelt
2 Duer 362 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1850)
State v. Fowler
4 Del. 358 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1846)
Abercrombie's Adm'r v. Chandler
9 Ala. 625 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1846)
State ex rel. Gibson v. Saddler
1 Ark. 235 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1845)
Miles v. Knott
12 G. & J. 442 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1842)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Wend. 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parmelee-v-hitchcock-nysupct-1834.