Chapman v Bowlry
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1841 |
| Date | 01 May 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 1030
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 83; 10 L. J. Ex. 299. Adopted, Sneary v. Abdy, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 302; Mortinmore v. Cragg, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 220. Applied, Ex parte Ford, 1886, 18 Q. B. D. 371. Discussed, Roe V. Hammond, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 306. Referred to, Lee v. Danger & Company, [1892] 1 Q. B. 231; In re a Debtor; Ex parte Smith, [1902] 2 K. B. 260.
[249] chapman v. bovvlby. Exch. of Fleas. May 1, 1841.-A testatum B. fa. indorsed to levy 2584, issued on the 14th of January, 1841, under which, on the 20th of January, the sheriff seized the defendant's goods. While the officer continued in possession, the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, that on payment to him of the sum of 500, the officer should withdraw, and that the judgment should stand as a security for the payment of the residue of the debt in monthly sums of 200 each; in default in payment of any of such monthly instalments, the plaintiff to be at liberty immediately to re-enter into possession. The officer withdrew from possession accordingly, and no return was made to the writ: but default being made in payment of the instalments, a second writ of testatum fi. fa. issued on the 14th of April, indorsed to levy 2701, the amount then due to the plaintiff, under which the sheriff re-entered and took possession of the goods :-Held, that there was an actual levy under the first writ to the extent of 500, and therefore that the second writ was irregular, since it ought not to have issued until the first had been returned, and ought to have recited the first writ, and the amount levied under it. [S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 83; 10 L. J. Ex. 299. Adopted, Sneary v. AUy, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 302; Mortimnre v. Gragg, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 220. Applied, Ex parte Funl, 1886, 18 Q. B. D. 371. Discussed, Roe v. Hammond, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 306. Referred to, Lee v. Danger & Company, [1892] 1 Q. B. 231; In re a Debtor; Ex parte Smith, [1902] 2 K. B. 260.] In this case a writ of testatum fieri facias, indorsed to levy on the goods of the defendant the sum of 25841. 7s. Id., issued out of this Court on the 14th of January, 1841, directed to the sheriff of the county of Durham, under which, on the 20th of January, the sheriff's officer seized the household goods and furniture in the defendant's house. While the officer continued in possession, the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff', that on payment to the plaintiff of the sum of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Purcell
...216. Yates v. Meehan 11 Ir. C. L. K. App. 1. Royle v. BusbyELR 6 Q. B. Div. 171. Alchin v. WellsENR 5 T. R. 470. Chapman v. BowlbyENR 8 M. & W. 249. In re Craycrof 8 Ch. Dir. 596. Sheriff — Fees — Sale under fi. fa. partially abortive — Part only of goods taken in execution sold before bank......
-
Holmes v Sparkes and Nichols
...to assume that there had been no [247] execution executed, because there was a compromise. Parke, B., lays it down in Chapman v. Bowlby, 8 M. & W. 249, that poundage is payable to the sheriff in all cases where the money is obtained under compulsion of the writ. [Cresswell, J. Then, a denia......
-
Andrews v Saunderson and Nicholls
...IC M & W. 191 1394 HELLABY V. BROWN 1 H & N. 727 [727J O'Malley shewed cause in the first instance In the case of Chapman v. Bawlby (8 M. & W. 249) the rule and the reasons for it are rightly stated, but the judgment of the Court proceeds on the ground that under the compromise something wa......