Case ID: scl_18/html/0101-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Harper J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mazyck & Bell v. A. Coil.
    Where aji. fa. and ca. sa. on the same judgment have been lodged, the sheriff may proceed successively on both, until the debt is paid : Nor is it necessary that he should make return of a partial levy and sale under the fi.fa. either before he makes an additional levy for the residue of the debt, or before he proceeds on the ca. sa.
    
    Alevy is only prima feme evidence of satisfaction; and as soon as it is ascertained to he insufficient, by a sale of the goods levied, the sheriff may proceed on the same day, either to make a new levy, or to take the defendant under a ca. sa. if one has been lodged.
    Motion to discharge defendant from arrest under a ca. sa. made before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Lancaster, Fall Term, 1830.
    
      1 M’C. 176. and see Primrose v. Gibson in B R. Mich. 1822. 2 D. & R. 193. Edmond v. Ross. Ex.Hill. 1821, 9 Price, 10. S. P.
    The ground of the motion was, that at the time of the arrest, afi.fa. was in existence, on which proceedings had been had, and had not been returned, and on which further proceedings were afterwards had. A fi. fa. and a ca. sa. were lodged at the same time on the 16th Nov. 1829. A levy was made under the fi.fa. on the 20th July, 1830, on several tracts of land and other property, all of which was sold on the 6th September, 1830. A further levy was made on the 14th September, and the property sold on the 5th of October, 1830. After the sales were closed, there remained $4,600, still unpaid on the judgment; and on the same day after closing the sales, the defendant was arrested under the ca. sa. At the succeeding term of the Court of Common Pleas for Kershaw District, the plaintiff took out a rule against the sheriff of that district, to shew cause why he should not pay over to the plaintiff’s execution, certain moneys in his hands, which he had collected by execution for the present defendant; and this rule was made absolute.
    His Honor refused the motion to discharge the defendant; and it was now renewed in this Court.
    Clinton, for the motion.
    Cited State v. Guignard, 1 M’C. 176. Miller a. Bagwell, 4 M’C. 429. 6 Bac. Abr. 719. Execu tion D. 1 N. & M. 406.
    Blanding, contra.
    
   Harper J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

There is no doubt but that a fi. fa. and ca. sa. may be taken out and exist at the same time, on the same judgment, though only one can be executed. ' The execution of one supersedes the other. For the motion it was argued, that this fi. fa. was executed ; that a levy is prima facie a satisfaction, and must be so regarded until it has been disposed of and found insufficient: that this can only appear, legally on the return of the writ, upon which, according to the English practice, a new execution ought to issue only for the balance due, reciting that all the money was not levied on the first. 2 Bac. Abr. 719. Execution D. Such I suppose to be the English practice; but it is certain that the practice of this State has been immemorially different. A levy is regarded as a satisfaction until it has been disposed of and found insufficient. But as soon as it is disposed of, and found by the sheriff to be insufficient, he may, according to our practice, proceed to take a further satisfaction, and it cannot be material Whether it is by ánotherlevy, or by an execution of the ca. sa. in his hands. If the reasoning in support of the motion be correct, the second levy in this case was irregular. It was contended that the order .obtained at Kershaw Court was a subsequent proceeding on the fi. fa. We do not perceive how this can be regarded as a proceeding on the fi. fa. If the arrest was legal, and a satisfaction to all intents, the order was erroneous, and the plaintiff has obtained money to which he was not intitled. If after the arrest another levy had been made under the fi.fia. I suppose this would have been merely a trespass, as the fi.fia. was a nullity.

It was further argued that the law does not allow fractions of a day, and that the arrest ought not to have been made on the day the levy was disposed of. I think this is misconceived. The sheriff could not execute the ca. sa. until the levy was disposed of, because until then, the levy was presumed a satisfaction. But as soon as it was ascertained not to be a satisfaction, it was with relation to his right to enforce a further satisfaction as if no levy had been made. I suppose if another levy under the fi.fia. had been made on the same day, it would hardly have been questioned.

Motion refused.