Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-07-24

i m n
tender him The rent and interest and smile
| him TO the loss OF The expense he has incnrre
and the posse ;son he has secured. Tn Mace
| limitation upon recovery OF the lcuapt-to secur
the owner a quiet anu peacefu possessiun-t
| quiet 'iles-to prevent liiisalion-lo abolish m
| anliqualed technicalies of the old law aa w.l
as 10 protect the prudent and honest tenant wh
prosecules his claim in a reason BILE lime an
the objects OF The amendments. They are Inn
pcrtant amendments, and probably sbould +
passed over so as enable The House 10 eramin
t.em bn be was ready, from his Examination i,
give than his support unless some reason whiel
could not be anlic ,paled should be given The,
had mol bscu examined u The committee of Re-
vision in lis official capacity, having been re-
ceived alter The chapter 10 which they RELAXED la,
been disposed Of and The bill epsros,ed bu
they had teen examined by several of the mem,
bers. and we're well and judiciousiy drawn
MIR. mONCURE Of s., said n Commute,
OF Revision had not formally acicd upon III,
secIiors-and would po5ab!y have adope,
Them, but for tais portion OF the Csde havin.
been completed. Mr.. M. thought The sections
nient IL The necessities of the people Of Alexao
dria-Mf. M. explained ,ne sec,ious-whict
were periecly reasonable and We dawn,
Mr.. JONES said this wa. q mailer of scrion
importance, aft cling the rights ri many indiy,d
uals The House had not lad an opponunil,
Of examining The sec ions-and he huped they
would be passed over Tor he present.
Mr.. SMl III had no objection if thew were
TO be lakeu up again. before leaving this mai
OF the C..de. M.. s. iuriher explained the ner
lis of Tie subject. Mr.. s., then willdlcw ,ht
sections.
Mr.. WOgTHINGTON moved to amepr
chapter Isl on aItachmenls--so a, 10 provide
that when various attachments are issued or
Inc sa me day, they shall share ralabIy The prop.
cry attached but when they are issued on dit.
ierent days, They shall be satisfied according Il
The priority Of lb' time al which they are issu
ed. Mr.. w. said the Reyisiors had provided
Tor raiatle apporloinment in case he auach.
menis were lepifd on The same day-and II l.y
led on dIfferen' days. The priority CT lien mus,
attach accordingly. To remove The scra uble
that must ensue, Mr.. w. had moved lie
amendment.
Mr.. FAULKNER stated The Inconvenience
and loss which had iolowsd from contrary
practice. Ia ore ChaHccry case in his country
iofy-two attachments were sued out apains,
one debtor, al cost OF $1,000 Now, This heavy
cost would have been saved, had they shared
ratably.
Mr. MONCURE OF s. thought lie section In
The Code should not he changed. Il is in these
words: "TEe attachment first served on the sa me
properly, or ON The person having such properly
10 possession, shall have priority Of Iien,n
An attachment is hon only from The time il
is served, and that is The period IRON which pri.
ofiiy should date. |; was just that The advantages
should be enjoyed according 10 the vigilance OF
The parties. il would evidently be unius, for one
creditor 10 avail himself OF the superior diligence
Of another creditor in findins out Inc properly OF
his debtor. The execution that fist Comes INTO
The haad: OF A sheriff has the FIRST lien, on The
same principle the attachment that is first levied
on The properly should have priority II The Of.
hcer has all the aachmeG.s in hi: hard al the
same lime, they cl5b; 10 share ratably. The
amendment reversed This operation.
Mr. BOYD thought Mr. WORTHtNGTON'S
proposition better than The other, especially il
applied 10 personal properly. He did mol see
why Ihefe should De any priority 10 regard 10
al properly, which cannot be moved from the
Safe After The first attachment On real proper
", ne wonld prevent al Individual from selling
Or transferring the nrnnrtty. lad would alloy aay
creditor 10 come IN .aiab'y.
Mr. WOErRlNGr TON sr.ued with Mr..
MUNCuRE VI S hat this pIiciily OF lien ought
10 BE seuied as rule TOR Inc wlole S,ae. Mr..
w. though the priority ,houd ). given, accord
in. 10 the vigilance Of the erection |, il JUS that
an attachment ISSUED to-day, shold have priority
over another attachment issued week ago =
The credilo. tanno, cc:.2ei .he tticcr 10 levy The
execution, ald, 10 having the attachment issued
has done al. that he caE DO. Hw is the officer
TO know which shall be levied 6!st Mr.. w
argued hat tn only safe and Just moce was 10
allow priority OF linc, according 10 the dates Of
issuing The attachments.
Mr.. PniCE agreed with MIR LACY that the
creditor should show his tiiiselce III having The
attachment placed 10 The hands Of The "a :sr. He
was not sure that ID. priority SHOULD not begiL
from The lime when tae attachments are placed
IN Inc hands of the rff,er. Between The Two com
peiing propositions &c should supper! the original
one.
MIR. SCOTT was inclined 10 supper. MIR. VS.
amendment, and cited The decision 0. Chancellor
Taylor, lhai the priority Of attachments shoa .
commence from Tue time of isuing Them This
decision had been received with great favor in
various portions Of lhs Stale. The officer may
exercise pariaiiiy in lcpylng attachments, and
may do great injustice TO ceriain ere litoIs.
Mr. LACY moved TO amend, SO as TO give
priority of lien, according TO the ,iGe at which
attachments shall coma TO the hands OF the
proper officer. II they come into bis hands on
The same day, they shall share ratably. He
wished TO place attachment, on the same foo;
lug as feri focias.
Mr.. WHlTrLE lhc,5ht that when attach
ments are issued on the same day, they should
share ratab,; and that when attachments are
levied on different days, the attachment hrst le-
Wed shall have priority Of lien MIR. w. moved
10 strike out and amend accordingly. He said
that the creditor had he right TO sue the clerk
or tho sheriff on his bond, 10 case he showed
partiality TO particular creditors. HIS amend
ment would settle The point on equitable
grounds. fEere is no defaut in either party
Both have done their duty, as far as The law al
lows them; but The lien DIES not gin until the
levy. Ii he sheriff violates bis duty TO one oil
the other creditor, let the injured creditor 60
ag4ins, the officer on bi bond
Mr. SCOTT. Why turn over the injured
creditor 10 lhe circu tous action on the ooEd OIL
the sheriff or of.iceri Ii we adopt the order in
which attachments arc issued, the most dIigcnl
creditor will have his just rights. The amend
neut of the gentleman IRON MecRlehours
would act unju,lly in prelud'c'ng party who i
10 DO def ull, aud i giving al advantage to
q sutton who is in fault
MIR. WHlrlLES amendment was lost.
MIR IRVING asked how we could ascertain
which attachment came hrst lGio The hands OIL
an officer. as there my be several officers
MIR. LACY SAID that each officer would ec.
dorse The time at which be receives the attach.
men,, as 10 case Of ftrl ficias
Mr.. PRICE followc, taklOg similar views &c
those Of MIR l..
Mr. MAYO said Mr.. 3 question had rot
been answered. suppose the property be LEVIED
on by the officer OF one court, and be after
wards taken by different officer, Gas 10 casa o
sheriff of Hcnrico and tho Sergeant Of Rich
mond,) will not question Of priority arisoi-
Mr.. Nj. thought that BY applying the section &c
attachments coming ioio the hands of "the same
Officer" 1t would renoyo The difficulty. A
sheriff aud bis deputies in county would Dc
regarded as 1.-THE same officer"
Mr. SCOTT said the best and simplest plan
was to adop, Mr.. Worthinston's amendment
which looks 10 The record tina. cannot be
changed 10 determining priority why oper
the door TO partially and co ruplioo, by rust
ing to the uncertain and shifting discretion o.
Mir HARRISON OF L. said the discussion
had shown that every P!ao, but that reported b,
The Revision Committee, for adjusting this ques
lion. would be impraclicablc. Ii il were 10 ap