Polite v. Jefferson

Superior Court of Delaware

Polite v. Jefferson

5 Del. 388

DecidedJuly 5, 1852

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Del. 388 (Polite v. Jefferson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Polite v. Jefferson, 5 Del. 388 (Del. Ct. App. 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

said it was the duty of the justice to file the inventory, and endorse the levy and amount on his record. In the absence of this entry, the presumption would be, that no levy was made; but the negligence of the officer would not prevent a party from proving a levy. The best evidence of that is the inventory itself; if its existence and loss are proved, its contents may be proved.

This evidence was put in.

*389 Layton, for plaintiff. Cullen, for defendant.

Mr. Cullen moved a nonsuit for want of proof of an appraisement, following the levy. Digest, 339, requires an appraisement to be made. Execution does not bind until appraisement. [Code, 347.) The fi. fa. and the levy had been returned. The only process Polite had was a venditioni exponas. That process gave no custody of the goods to the officers. It gives no authority to take the property; only to sell. A venditioni gives no property. ( Watson Sheriff, 137-8; Law Lib.) The officer must continue in possession of the property. Leaving it in the defendant’s possession, he gave him the power to commit a fraud on the defendant, by selling the oxen. And this plaintiff is the same officer. He cannot now take advantage of his own wrong. (14 Wend. Rep., 123; 2 Saund. Rep., 47, b. n. e.; 5 Denio Rep., 138; 9 Pick. Rep., 360.)

The Court refused the nonsuit.

Harrington, Judge.

The English practice is as stated. But it has been regarded as the law of this State, that a valid levy might be made, without actual seizure and removal of the goods. An inventory and appraisement regularly made, is a good levy. And the special property of the officer making the levy continues, though he leave the property in defendant’s possession, and return his writ. A limitation of the lien of such levy is made by the new code. The appraisement is made by the officer himself, under his official oath. (3 Harr. Rep., 514; 1 Ibid, 107; Code, 347.) As to the proof of the appraisement, we shall leave it to the jury on the testimony.

The case went to the jury, and plaintiff had a verdict for the value of the oxen, and interest, by way of increase of damages.

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

The Court

said it was the duty of the justice to file the inventory, and endorse the levy and amount on his record. In the absence of this entry, the presumption would be, that no levy was made; but the negligence of the officer would not prevent a party from proving a levy. The best evidence of that is the inventory itself; if its existence and loss are proved, its contents may be proved.

This evidence was put in.

*389 Layton, for plaintiff. Cullen, for defendant.

Mr. Cullen moved a nonsuit for want of proof of an appraisement, following the levy. Digest, 339, requires an appraisement to be made. Execution does not bind until appraisement. [Code, 347.) The fi. fa. and the levy had been returned. The only process Polite had was a venditioni exponas. That process gave no custody of the goods to the officers. It gives no authority to take the property; only to sell. A venditioni gives no property. ( Watson Sheriff, 137-8; Law Lib.) The officer must continue in possession of the property. Leaving it in the defendant’s possession, he gave him the power to commit a fraud on the defendant, by selling the oxen. And this plaintiff is the same officer. He cannot now take advantage of his own wrong. (14 Wend. Rep., 123; 2 Saund. Rep., 47, b. n. e.; 5 Denio Rep., 138; 9 Pick. Rep., 360.)

The Court refused the nonsuit.

Harrington, Judge.

The English practice is as stated. But it has been regarded as the law of this State, that a valid levy might be made, without actual seizure and removal of the goods. An inventory and appraisement regularly made, is a good levy. And the special property of the officer making the levy continues, though he leave the property in defendant’s possession, and return his writ. A limitation of the lien of such levy is made by the new code. The appraisement is made by the officer himself, under his official oath. (3 Harr. Rep., 514; 1 Ibid, 107; Code, 347.) As to the proof of the appraisement, we shall leave it to the jury on the testimony.

The case went to the jury, and plaintiff had a verdict for the value of the oxen, and interest, by way of increase of damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Del. 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polite-v-jefferson-delsuperct-1852.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack