TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lasselle v. Moore

Lasselle v. Moore, 1 Blackf. 226 (1822)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 18, 1822
Judges
Scott
Citations
1 Blackf. 2261822 Ind. LEXIS 39
Headnotes
If an execution improvidently issue, — -for example, a fi. fa. without a judgment, or while the defendant’s real estate is held by a venditioni exponas, —it will be set aside on motion at law, due notice of the motion having been given. But a Court of chancery will not interfere, except to stay the proceedings, when necessary, until the motion can be heard.
Summary
THIS was a suit in equity, transferred from the Knox Circuit Court previously to a decree, in consequence of the interest of the circuit judge. The proceedings against the complainant, on an execution mentioned in the bill, had been enjoined by the Court below, until the hearing of the cause.

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

Opinion of the Court — Scott

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

Scott, J.

Lasselle complains in his bill, that an execution-was issued against him and another, in favour of Moore, without any judgment to authorize it; and that, after the real estate of one of the defendants had been offered for sale on a venditioni exponas, and the sheriff had returned that the property was not sold for want of bidders, a ft. fa. was sued out and levied on the personal estate of the other defendant.

This is a case properly relievable in a Court of law, by notice and motion to set aside the execution (1) . If an execution be issued without a judgment, — or if, while the real estate of the defendants or either of them is held by a venditioni exponas, the plaintiff take out a ft. fa. and levy or be about to levy on other property, — the Circuit Court will set aside such illegal execution on motion.

Should an execution, improvidently issued, press the defendant so closely, that he cannot give ten days’ notice, and have it set aside on motion in a Court of law, he may, by application to the Chancellor, have an injunction, or an order to stay proceedings, till he can be heard. But, except for the purpose of staying proceedings till application can be made to a Court of law, a Court of chancery has nothing to do with it.

Per Curiam.

The injunction is dissolved, and the bill dismissed, with costs.

Vide Cline v. Green, ante, p. 53. — Hedges v. Gray, May term, 1829, post.

How later courts describe this case

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

1844–1845: 11850–1851: 11852–1853: 11856–1857: 11872–1873: 11874–1875: 11880–1881: 11884–1885: 11888–1889: 118442026peak 1844 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Miller v. Ashton7 Blackf. 29 (1844)
  2. Whiting v. Beebe7 Ark. 421 (1851)
  3. Lindley v. Kelley42 Ind. 294 (1873)
  4. Neff v. Hagaman78 Ind. 57 (1881)
  5. Schwab v. City of Madison49 Ind. 329 (1874)
  6. McIver v. Ballard96 Ind. 76 (1884)

Most recent

  1. Dorsey v. Hall41 N.W. 471 (1889)
  2. McIver v. Ballard96 Ind. 76 (1884)
  3. Neff v. Hagaman78 Ind. 57 (1881)
  4. Schwab v. City of Madison49 Ind. 329 (1874)
  5. Lindley v. Kelley42 Ind. 294 (1873)
  6. Hunt v. Lane9 Ind. 248 (1857)

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