Case ID: johns_14/html/0354-02.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

Sheldon against Soper.
    NEW-YORK,
    October, 1817.
    At a sale umier an execution, must beCpeoim°ed deís,t0ande stid separately and Where goods are sold under an execution, without any particular designation at the time of sale, the purchaser acquires no property, i action of trover for the goods. . In an action oftrover, the plaintiff must show property m himself. I cannot maintain aa
    IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. ' • J
    
    This was an action of trover, brought by the defendant in error, the plaintiff in the court below, against the plaintiff in error, for goods which he claimed by virtue of a purchase at a sheriff’s sale under an execution against one Ellis. It appeared that the deputy sheriff, when he made the levy, under that exe cution, did not see the property in question, or know that Ellis owned it, and that at the time of the sale he did not know that it belonged to Ellis ; but he put up some articles specifically, and all the other personal property, generally, intending thereby to sell the whole of the personal property of Ellis. The defendant below set up a claim to the property as a purchaser under a prior execution against Ellis; and evidence was given to show that that sale was fraudulent. It appeared that when the sale to the plaintiff below was made, Ellis was in possession of the articles claimed in this suit. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff below, the defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

The evidence was pretty strong to show that the defendant below acquired no right to the property in question, under the sale set up by him; for, independently of the question of fraud, the sale, in that case, was general, of all the presonal property ot Ellis ;k but in an action of trover, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show property in himself, which was not done in this instance. The general sale under the execution would not pass the property; the sheriff did not even know the goods, or pretend to sell them specifically, and to sanction such sales would open a door to innumerable frauds. The property should be pointed out to the inspection and examination of bidders, that they may be enabled to form an estimate of its value; as was held necessary by this court in the case of Jackson v. Striker, ■ (1 Johns. Cas. 287.) Although the sale in that case was of real property, yet the same reason and policy apply to sales of chattels. It was there laid down as a.general rule, that nothing ought to pass at a public sale, but wha* was then known and promulgated : that it was a general and salutary principle-—one necessary in order to guard against fraud, and to preserve integrity and fairness at public auctions—that no property should pass at a sheriff’s sale, but what was, at the timo, ascertained and declared. (14 Johns. Rep. 222.) The judgment must, accordingly, be reversed.

Judgment reversed. 
      
       Vide Woods v. Meacll and others, 1 Johns. Chan. Rep. 502.