The Alexandria herald. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1811-1826, 1816-08-05
INTERESTING LAW CASE.
CRcror,ed for the Democratic Press I
HUM VS.. Kfte.

num- VS. AHe.
10 this case Venditioni Exponas
issued out of the district court of the
city and county of Philadelphia to June
Term 1916 by virtue OF which the
shetiff advertised and sold on the goth
May at the Merchanis's Coffee House,
the premises In question to VIM. y
Birch, esq. for 2,7OO dollars. Ihe
plain,if with his codnsei attenned the
sale, and the property was sold in the
usual manner for cash in ten days or to
be sold again again at the risque of the
purchaser. On the mex: day { lst JureI
the plaintiff and one other atieE credi-
tor Motif I'd the sheriff to receive moth
ing but shscie in pasment of the pur
chase money. On the Sd and 9Th OF
June rule was Obtained and made alb
solute Oh The sheriff 20 bring the money
into court On the 5th rule was OBJ
taincd 10 shew cause why attachment.
should not issue against the sheriff Tor,
mol bringing the money into court a.
greeably to the rule-On the next Sa-
turday il was made returnable, the iol
lowing facts were proven. 1t appear
ed by the return of the sheriF that he
had sold the property Tor S ? 700 and
that upon deducting costs. exc he Ead
the balance in his handl ready To pay
6 in Philadelphia bank notes !" II APP
peared that he had paid into the hanIs
oil the prothonotsry as much specie as
was equal 10 Philadelphia bank notes at
eighteen per cent. advance upon t..e
dollar IL was proven by Mr. Elliott,
that the sale mad been made 10 the Usu
all manner, that Philadelphia bank pa-
per had always oeen taken In such ca
ses, and that In one or two cases In
which specie was demanded, IL was
expressly stated and notice was given
before the sale by the parties In these
cases, he iikew Sc stated that the de
mahd If specie was prejudicial 10 tie
safe OF property, alter allowing Tor The
difference in value Some evidence
was given as To the supposed value OF
the premises now sole, hut there app
peared to be various opinions. When
che sheriff received the amount IN bank
paper he took from the purchaser an
lnde unity, an assignment OF which nc
profSrcd TO the parties, The proceeds
were 10 be divided between thirteen
creditors, sig Of whom had made a de
Insnd for specie, three including the
ground rent landlord, had offered TO re
ceiYe bank paper, the remalndeF had
given no express directions
Upon this statement of facts the mo-
ton fer the attachment was argued
with zeal on both sides, with reference
TO numerous authorities.
For the motion it was commended, tina.
the sheriffis bound TO bring the money
inlO court upon the writ, that nothing
was money but specie, that bank notes
were OF 80 more value than the notes
OF an m1lVidull, particularly after the
sheriff had received the caution troin
the plsiDtlf, that the constitution OF The
United S.ates had prevented the legls
Iature of ANY state from making dny
thing bur gold and silver coin OF IN
United States tender, and that ths
judiciary could not do that by circui,y
which The Legislature were directly
prevented from doing. That the pow
CT Of issuing attachments agains' Tx
. - ,ers Of the court was prompt, eff
hfent aud salulary, and ought TO be la
tSoTed.
Against the motion, il was urged
that the Isgislstnye han viewed tn
power with jealousy and had reatrictec
the courts TO issue an attachment 80
what he had received by,tSo dIffersn
acts of assembly, that in Engiaod an a
tachmeDt would NOT be ISSUED cxcep.
there appeared to be manifest opprcs
slonJ that bank notes were money or no.
Il they we're, then the sheriff was Coz
rect, if they we're not. then ne mad 70
eeived nothing, and Of cousse no a;
taehment could Issue, that the disilnc
zion between bank paper and The note
OF an individual was known 10 the case
ct tender, that as the sheriff had r.
5sivad the amount according TO thc
understanding of the parties az tb
time Of the sale, he was not liable IN ans
shape, and for this purpose the case
Lessee Of Dilworth SinderliBg, BIZ.
pey $se was cited, that at all event
the parties had another remedy against'
the sheriff by an action for false re-
turn in which such of the creditors
demanded specie might bring the ques
tion before jury, and have il solemuly
| - A. a 4.