State ex rel. Hunt v. Spencer
This text of 4 Blackf. 310 (State ex rel. Hunt v. Spencer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DEBT on a sheriff’s bond against the principal and his sureties. Breach, the sheriff’s failure to return an execution in favour of the relator, &c. Two pleas as follows: I. That
when the execution came to the sheriff’s hands, the execution-defendant had no property within the sheriff’s bailiwick whereof to make the money or any part of it, but was then and still continued to be notoriously insolvent. 2. That at the time when the execution came to the sheriff’s hands, and at the time when it should have been returned, viz. on, &c., the relator had no interest in the execution or the judgment on which the same issued, nor was he entitled to any part of the money due thereon, &c. Held, that these pleas were bad on general demurrer. Held, also, that the declaration was bad; it containing no averment of a judgment on which the execution issued
Vide The State v. Beem, Vol. 3 of those Rep. 222; Hall v. Johnson, Ibid. 363.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Blackf. 310, 1837 Ind. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hunt-v-spencer-ind-1837.