Jordan against Binckes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1849 |
| Date | 11 June 1849 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 1453
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 7 D. & L. 30; 18 L. J. Q. B. 277; 13 Jur. 732.
[757] jordan against binckes. Monday, June llth, 1849. A fi. fa. "returnable immediately after the execution thereof," under stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 67, s. 2, is in force until it has been completely executed; and, where a portion only of the amount for which the writ issued was realized by levy, a second levy under the same writ for the balance, eleven years afterwards, was held good. [S. C. 7 D. & L. 30; 18 L. J. Q. B. 277 ; 13 Jnr. 732.] Bramwell, in last Easter term, obtained a rule calling upon the plaintiff and the Sheriff of Middlesex to shew cause why the levy and execution of a writ of fi. fa. in this cause on the 12th March 1849 should not be set aside, and why the sum of 821. 4*. levied by the said sheriff thereunder, and now in his hands, should not be returned to the defendant. The writ in question, " returnable immediately after the execution thereof," to levy 901. 15s. had issued in 1838. In that year a levy was made which produced about 51. after payment of expenses ; and, on 12th March 1849, the further sum of 821. 4s. was made by a second levy under the same writ. Lush for the plaintiff, and Burchell for the sheriff, now shewed cause. The question whether a second levy can be made under a fi. fa., " returnable immediately after the execution thereof," under stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 67, s. 2, arises now for the first time. A second writ for the purpose of obtaining complete execution of the judgment would have been irregular, as the present writ has not been returned ; Chapman v. Bowlby (8 M. & W. 249): and the sheriff was bound to make the second levy under the same writ. Before stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 67, if complete execution had not been had before the return day of the fi. fa., a second writ would [758] have been necessary to warrant further execution. Since the statute, however, it has been held that a ca. sa. is not returnable until the defendant be arrested; Lewis v. Holmes (10 Q. B. 896). In like manner a fi, fa. is now not returnable until " after execution," that is complete execution. It is no objection that complete execution is not had until after the expiration of a year from the judgment, provided that the writ has been duly sued out within the year and day. This has been distinctly held with respect to a ca. sa.; Simpson v. Heath (b), Greenshields v. Harris (9 M. & W. 774). One of the objects of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayview Estates Ltd., Re, (1980) 28 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 225 (NFTD)
..."seizure" for the purpose of an execution under a writ of fieri facias - See paragraph 43. Cases Noticed: Jordan v. Binckes (1849), 13 Q.B. 757, consd. [para. R. v. Sheriff of Essex (1839), 8 Dow 5, consd. [para. 25]. Denis v. Whetham and another (1874), 43 L.J.Q.B. 129, consd. [p......