Watson v. Hoel
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.
Per Cur.
Let the sheriff stand amerced in the debt and costs. The prefacing his return with a few specified items, and concluding generally with a seizure of “ all the household goods,” which may be worth £1200 or £12, is a direct breach of his duty.' A particular schedule should be returned, or all the frauds will be encouraged which the legislature had it in view to prevent. A sheriff cannot plead ignorance, nor. can the court allow of such a plea in this case.
Rule absolute.
Cited in Lloyd v. Wyckoff, 6 Hal. 265; Hustick v. Allen, Coxe 169; Todd & Rafferty v. Hoagland, 7 Vr. 355 .
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.