Case ID: johns_14/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Taylor and others against Marshal.
    NEW-YORK,
    May 1817.
    
      In an action to recover the value 01'propt.rty •wh-ch had been t? ken under an execution against A., by a person claiming lo have purchased the property of A., evidence of a conversation between the rjlaintiff and A., m which the previous sale was admitted, is not competent evidence of the sale.
    IN ERROR, to the court of common pleas of the county os C nmvilnv)f\t WwtUis
    
      The defendants below objected to the testimony, but the court permitted it to go to the jury, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff below. The defendants below tendered a bill of which was removed into this court by writ of error. account. The defendant in error brought an action in the court be- low, to recover the value of a pair of oxen, which had belonged to one Ward,. and were taken by Taggart, one of the defendants below, who was a constable, under an execution issued in favour of the other defendants below, against Ward. The plaintiff be- low produced at the trial one Matilda Marshal, and offered to prove by her, that she heard the plaintiff converse with Ward about the cattle, and that it was agreed between them, that Ward had, previously to that day, sold the cattle to the plaintiff, but she was not present at the time the contract was
    The case was submitted to the court without argument.
   Per Curiam.

The case is imperfect in not stating whether the cattle were in Ward's possession or not, when taken on the execution; nor whether the conversation proved by Marshal, was before, or after, the levying the execution on the oxen.

We think, however, there is enough to show, that the evidence was improper, and that it may fairly be intended, that the was after the judgment and execution; it was an to prove and set up an antecedent sale, by the confessions and declarations of the parties, to the prejudice of the rights of a third person; nothing but the fact of the sale, derived from witnesses present at it, could be legally proved.

Judgment