Case ID: va_2/html/0636-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brydie v. Langham.
    April Term, 1795.
    Ca. Sa. — Service of Writ Out of County. — Judgment in the County Court of P. where the defendant resided; a capias ad satisfaciendum cannot.be issued to the Sheriff of the county of H., and be there served, the defendant happening to be found in th at county when the writ was served, but it not appearing that he had removed his property out of the county of P.
    The appellant having recovered 4 judgments in the County Court of Fluvanna against the appellee, sued out 4 several writs of ca. sa. against his body, directed to the sheriff of Henrico county, where he was taken and committed to jail. The court upon motion, quashed these executions with costs including an attorney’s fee, assigning the following reason for their opinion : ‘ ‘That the said writs were illegal, because Uangham was a resident of Fluvanna county, and the said executions were levied upon him in the county of Henrico, whither he had gone at the time the said writs of execution were levied, and it not appearing, *that he had removed his property out of the county of Fluvanna.”
    The appellant excepted to the opinion of the court, because the following evidence was determined to be sufficient to prove that notice was given of this motion. A notice in writing was proved to have been delivered to the appellant, stating that a motion would be made on a certain day of the next court, to quash four executions issued from the clerk’s office of Fluvanna court, against him the said Dangham, to satisfy Alexander Brydie, assignee of William Galt & Co. and one other execution issued from the same office, to satisfy Alexander Brydie & Co. which executions, issued on the 6th of August, and were made returnable to the succeeding October term, all of which executions were contrary to law.
    The appellee also proved by a witness, that he had heard a collector of the appellant’s say, that he had understood that motions were to be made at this court to quash the above executions.
    The judgment of the County Court was affirmed in the District Court of Charlottes-ville, where it was carried by appeal. From this judgment, an appeal was granted to this court.
    Copland for the appellant.
    Until the act of 1748. C. 8, no writ of execution could issue from one County Court directed to the sheriff of another County. By this law § 20, it is enacted, that where judgment is rendered in any County or inferior court, for debt, or damages, and the defendant shall remove himself and his effects, or shall reside out of the limits of the jurisdiction of such court, the clerk is authorised tp issue any writ of fi. fa. or ca. sa. directed to the sheriff of any county, where the defendant, or debtor, or his goods shall be found. Now it is evident, that the fair construction of this law is, that if the defendant remove himself or his effects, execution may go into any county where his person or effects are to be found. If it were otherwise, the defendant might easily evade the provisions of the law, by removing himself, and leaving effects of small value behind him. Besides, it does not appear in this case, that the appellee had any effects at all, in Fluvanna, and the court cannot presume he had. The record states, that it did not appear he had removed his effects. But it shoiild have been proved that he had not removed them. If the law be taken literally, it would follow, that if the defendant has effects in any other county than that, in which he resides, a fi. fa. may issue to that county.
    *Marshall for the appellee.
    There can be little doubt about the true construction of this law. The removal contemplated by the legislature was a permanent one ; it must be a compleat abandonment of the county in which the •defendant resided. The evidence of such a removal, is the carrying with him the bulk of his property. The leaving of a small part behind, would be considered as a mere evasion, and would not avail the party. The enquiry in such a case must always be, whether the removal was a substantial one or a mere going out of the county with an intention of returning; and upon the evidence of the one, or of the other, the propriety, or impropriety of issuing the process to a different county, must always depend.
    The record leaves no room for doubt in this case, that the defendant had not removed himself with a view to abandon the county of Fluvanna.
    
      
      Ca. Sa. — Service of Writ Out of County. — The principal case is cited in Branch v. Webb, 7 Leigh 380, for the proposition that no ca. sa. could issue against the defendant except to the county where he was su'ed, unless he had actually removed ,the bulk of his effects out of the county.
    
   The Court

affirmed the judgment.