TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tolson v. Elwes

Tolson v. Elwes, 1 Va. 436 (1829)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Virginia · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1829
Judges
Carr
Citations
1 Va. 4361 Leigh 436
Headnotes
Execution sued out in the name of W. indorsed for benefit of E—held ■ that E. cannot maintain a motion in his own name against the sheriff for amount levied on the execution or for his default in service and return of the writ.
Summary
:.A' writ of fieri facias,'sueA out of the circuit court of Stafford, dated the 23d October 1823, and returnable the second Monday in January following, in the name of Wallack, but indorsed “ for the benefit of Elwes,” against Simms and Flournoy, for debt, interest and costs, for which Wallack had recovered judgment against them, was delivered to Beatty deputy of Tolson late sheriff of Stafford, who made the following return upon it—“ By virtue of this execution, I levied, and advertised according to law, the following property, to wit, Stock of horses, cows &tc. household furniture, and plantation utensils; the sale of which was prevented for want of bidders. (Signed) B. Beatty deputy for B. Tolson sheriff &c.” Upon this, a writ of venditioni exponas, dated the 18th April 1825, and returnable the'first day of May term following, was sued out, and delivered to the same deputy. This process also ran in the name .of Wallack, but was indorsed “ for the benefit of Elwes.” The deputy made the following return upon it—“ Levied this execution, together with two others which had previously come to hand, on the following property, subject to sundry taxes and levies due to me, to wit, One bureau he.” (enumerating divers articles of household furniture, and one cow and nine hogs); “ all of which I sold according to law, to the highest bidder, the 16th May 1825, for 130 dollars 92 cents; which sum was applied to the discharge of two executions which came to hand previously to this, namely, one in favor of the representatives of John Bronaugh, and the other in favor of Ephraim Brent; and the balance of the amount of sales is retained to satisfy in part taxes and levies due me. This execution was also levied on the following property, which could not be found on the day of sale of the above-mentioned property, to wit, Two horses he.” (enumerating a few cattle and hogs, and some farming utensils); “ which, when sold, shall he applied in part thereof. I had also levied on the following, to aid in discharge of this execution, to wit, One round tea table he.” (enumerating sundry articles of furniture and plate, a few cattle, mules and sheep, and some farming utensils); “ which last mentioned property I am advised has been enjoined by Mr. Brent and others, as not being liable to the discharge of the debts of the said Simms, and which I cannot sell, unless I am indem-. nified in the sale thereof. (Signed) R. Beatty deputy for B. Tolson sheriff &c.” Hereupon, Elwes, for whose benefit these two writs had been, sued out, gave a notice, in his own name, to Mr. Tolson the sheriff, that he would move the circuit court for judgment against him, for the full amount of the debt, interest and costs, mentioned in the venditioni exponas, with 15 per cent, per ann. interest thereon from the return day thereof until paid, according to the provisions of the statute, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 134. § 48. p. 542.* And upon the motion made by Elwes pursuant to this notice, the circuit court . gave him judgment, for 180 dollars 83 cents (the amount due on the venditioni exponas) with 15 per cent, per ann. interest thereon from the return day of the writ, and the costs of the motion. From which judgment Tolson appealed to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Carr

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Carr, J.

At common law, we know, choses in action were not assignable; nor could courts of law formerly take any notice of the equitable where it was distinct from the legal right. Courts of equity, however, held those assignments good, and enforced them; and, in later times, courts *441 of law have so far relaxed, as, in some instances, to notice the equitable right. Thus, they-will not suffer the assignor, whose name is used by the assignee in suing, to dismiss or in any way control the suit. Again, if the real owner of the debt, though not plaintiff on the record, be indebted to the defendant, the court will allow the defendant to set-off this debt against that for which he is sued. Thus the law stands in England, where there is no law permitting the assignment of dioses in action. But the courts of law have never gone so far as to suffer the assignee to institute a suit in his own name. (I am not speaking of bills of exchange assignable by the law merchant, or of promissory notes made so by the statute of Anne, but of mere dioses in action as contradistinguished from commercial paper.) Our statute declares “ assignments of bonds, bills and promissory notes, and other writings obligatory whatsoever, valid, and that the assignee may sue in his own name” &c. 1 Rev. Code, ch. 125. § 5. p. 484. It will be seen at once, that judgments and executions are not embraced by this statute: they, therefore, remain as at common law. And it may be laid down, as a general proposition, that in no proceeding to carry a judgment or execution into effect, can the name of the transferree he substituted for that of the plaintiff upon the record. But this proposition, deduced from the general principles of law, is still more clearly and strongly established by the particular statute under which this motion is made j by the words of which, the motion is given to the creditor at whose suit the execution shall issue. This, it seems to me, can mean no other than the plaintiff on the record. I think, therefore, this motion could not be maintained in the name of Elwes.

This point being sufficient for the reversal of the judgment, it is not necessary to give an opinion on the other points discussed at the bar.

The other judges concurred, and the judgment was reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1837–1838: 11839–1840: 11841–1842: 11843–1844: 11913–1914: 11925–1926: 118372026peak 1837 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shaw v. Monongahela Railway Co.130 S.E. 461 (W. Va. 1925)
  2. Governor, for Leightons v. Hinchman1 Va. 156 (1844)
  3. Wilson v. Shrader79 S.E. 1083 (W. Va. 1913)
  4. Poage v. Bell8 Va. 604 (1837)
  5. Newell v. Hamer5 Miss. 684 (1840)
  6. Wade v. Staunton, Buckner & Co.5 Miss. 631 (1841)

Most recent

  1. Shaw v. Monongahela Railway Co.130 S.E. 461 (W. Va. 1925)
  2. Wilson v. Shrader79 S.E. 1083 (W. Va. 1913)
  3. Governor, for Leightons v. Hinchman1 Va. 156 (1844)
  4. Wade v. Staunton, Buckner & Co.5 Miss. 631 (1841)
  5. Newell v. Hamer5 Miss. 684 (1840)
  6. Poage v. Bell8 Va. 604 (1837)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list