Case ID: ny_31/html/0102-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Davies, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Winter S. Bond v. James S. Willett.
    A manual interference with the goods of the defendant, is not necessary to constitute a valid levy.
    Where the sheriff is stayed in his proceedings on the execution and levy made under it, by an order of the court, and he resumes Ms control as soon as the order is vacated, he will not be deemed to have abandoned Ms levy during the continuance of the order.
    In this case, the sheriff had an execution against the property of Bemsen & Dingee, and proceeded to their store, and informed them of his business, exhibited the execution, and indorsed a levy of the same upon it, while in the store. By an arrangement with one of the partners, the officer left the goods in the store until the next day, when he was served with an order staying proceedings on the execution. Within about four weeks the order was vacated, and the sheriff resumed his control of the goods.
    Pending the order, the plaintiff, Bond, bought the goods, and, after the order was vacated, the sheriff took possession of the goods, and the plaintiff brought this action.
   Davies, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, which held the levy to be good, and that, under the order staying proceedings, there was no abandonment of the levy.

The case is reported in 27 How. Fr., p. 47.