Keaton v. Forrester
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bleckley, Justice.
After the evidence for the plaintiff in execution was all in, the court dismissed the levy for uncertainty, the description of the property levied upon being, as entered by the officer, one-half of a certain specified lot of land, without pointing out which half, or saying whether it was a divided or an undivided half. The claim papers were more definite than the levy; they stated expressly that it was the part of the lot lying south of a certain road which was levied upon, and to which the claim was asserted. It is urged that the claim affidavit and bond aided the levy for the purposes of this case, and that the court ought to have looked to them as well as the entz-y on the fi. fa., and that the uncertainty of the levy was changed into certainty by the affidavit and *207 bond. The reason assigned by the court for dismissing the levy may be sound or unsound, but the judgment of dismissal was indubitably correct. The evidence did not show that the lot or any part of it, any half, divided or undivided, was subject. There was no evidence of title in the defendant in fi. fa., or of any possession by him at or after the rendition of judgment. The onus was not changed, and there was nothing for the jury to try.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.