Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1866 edition. Excerpt: ...caused an alias execution to issue after a failure to return the original in due time. The non-return of the original fixes the Sheriff's liability, aud the attempt to make the money out of the defendant cannot be construed into a relinquishment of his right against the Sheriff. (Meigs' Dig., p. 946; 2 Swan, 442.) We have seen that the actual payment of the money by the defendant to the plaintiff, after the Sheriff's default, does not exonerate him. The fact that the plaintiff authorized him to return the execution to be renewed, has no other effect than to postpone the sale under that writ, and to obtain another. It is no legal excuse for his not returning it. (Beshears vs. Warner, 5 Sneed, 676.) FOR AN INSUFFICIENT RETURN. 485. We have seen in sec. 475 what is a sufficient return, and have given some instances of insufficient ones. There is to be observed a difference between a return which may indicate negligence in the Sheriff, and one which is insufficient. Thus an execution may issue and be delivered to him 30th June, returnable 13th September; and his return may show that it was levied 1st September, on goods. So great a lapse of time would indicate that he had not been sufficiently diligent in hunting for property. His return may show further, that when he did levy, at so late a day, he took a bond for the delivery of the property on the 13th, the return day of the writ, and the bond was then forfeited. This return is sufficient; it shows a levy on property in time to sell before the return day, and a reason why it was not sold, and the money made, that is, the forfeiture of the delivery bond. The Court cannot say that the Sheriff was guilty of negligence. He might have searched for property with all diligence, and not been able...
