Case ID: h-j_3/html/0206-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chase, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fitzhugh vs. Hellen.
    Error to Calvert County Court. On the 7th of May 1807, a writ of attachment on warrant, under the act of 1795, ch. 56, was issued by the defendant in error, (the plaintiff below,) against the goods and chattels, lands and .tenements, of-the plaintiff in error, (the defendant below;) the writ was returned by the sheriff, “attached as per schedule.” In the schedule, among other property of the defendant below, included therein and appraised, was “his life estate in all the lands got by his wife, supposed to be 450 acres, at 18s 9d per acre, ¿S414 7 6.” The defendant not appearing, judgment of condemnation was entered for the whole of the property included in thu schedule, towards satisfying the plaintiff’s claim. To reverse that judgment the present writ of error was brought.
    The return of a sñeriffto a writ of attachment on warrant was, that lie had attached of the goads, &c of the defendant, “•bis Ufe estate -m ail die lands got by' his wife, supposed to he 450 acres”— Held, that tbe return was defective m not describing with jmfficieiitt certain*ty the land attached, so as to lay a legal foumla trun for a judgment of candanfiaüojia
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Nicholson, and Earle, J. by
    
      T. Buchanan and Namider, for the Plaintiff in error ;
    and by
    Taney, for the Defendant in error.
    
      
       They referred to Williamson vs. Perkins, 1 Harr. & Johns. 449.
    
   Chase, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The court are of opinion, that the return of the sheriff to the writ of attachment, .is defective ip not describing with sufficient certainty the land attached, so as. to lay a legal foundation for the judgment of condemnation.

JUDGMENT REVERSED.