Brownlow's Knoxville Whig, and rebel ventilator. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1863-1866, 1866-01-03
Decisions of the Supreme Court.

UtCkShuHS Vi TIC SupEtmc COufts
ARMSTRONG & CORES. J. c. APPLE, and
Others.
On the 10th of July, 1852, the plaintiff in error
obtained Judgment against W. Z. Sigemore before
Thomas Cassty for $l3,84 and costs. On the 9TH of
Sentember 1852, an execution issued from said
Judgment and went into the hands of w. P. Witcher
Deputy of johnson county. On the 10th of July,
1854 the plaintiff in error served notice on the de-
PENDANT in error Apple the Sheriff OF the county,
that they would move for judgment against MIN
and his securities for the failure TO return the execu
zion. The motion was made before Justice Oh Tue
county. The plaintiffs and defendants IN error
appeared before the Justice and judgment was
rendered in favor of plaintiffs in error, from winch
an appeal taken to the Circuit Court where,
after various contnuances, trial was had ana the
motion dismissed by the Circuit Judge, from which
An appeal was taken to this court. 1t appears from
The proof the execution went into the hands OF
Witcher the regular Deputy, and was never re-
turned The Sheriff and his securities are regularly
before the court The Circuit Judge dismissed the
notion for the reason the plaintiff in error did not
give the defendant in error notice to produce the
.xecutou In this We think the Circuit Judge erred.
The notice was for failure to return execution The
proof shows it went into the hands of Wtcher, the
Deputy of Apple the Sheriff The language of the
,ct is imperative on the officer to return the eIecu
ion within the time prescribed by law. II he fall
o do so ne and his securities are liable. The judg
n-nt of the Circuit Court will be reversed, and
Judgment rendered against the Sheriff and his
rites. SHACK LEFORD, Judge.
Attest: ]. G. FRAZIER, Clerk.
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME
Court FOR THE MIDDLE DIVISION OF
THE STATE OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE J
l. Jesse g. Frazier, Clerk of said Court, do here
ay certify that the foregoing true, perfect and
complete copy of the opinion of the Court delivered
IN the case of Armstrong and Gore Vs. j. {. Apple
nd Othara ar tho Dacau1hpr Term 1868 file
4 my office.
-, In testimony whereof 1 have hereunto
Ills. set my hand and affixed the seal of said
~ Court at office in the Capitol at Nashville,
on this the 18th of December. 1865.
JESSE G. FRAZIER, Clerk.
DAVID r. VANCE, in error, u.s. 4. Il. COOPER
This is an action of repevin, brought in the Cir
cult Court of Bedford by the defendant in error,
for the recovery of certain slaves, goods and
merchandise, which. it is alleged, were wrongfully
N the possessi n of the plaintiff in error.
The facts necessary to be noticed as follows
Vance the plaintiff in error, was the deputy Sheriff
Of Bedford county, and US such, on the 2lst of No
vember 1860, levied a judicial attachment on the
property in controversy which, at the Instance of
VIM s. Eakin s Co., had issued from the Circuit
Court of said county at its August term, 1860,
against James w. Stephens and AlonEo Murphy.
stephens, who appears to have been the owner OF
the property attached on the leth of November,
1850 transferred, and by deed conveyed, in trust,
the same property to Cooper, the defendant in
rUr to secure the payment of certain debts therein
| mentioned and described. This deed was duly
| acknowledged, and noted for registration on the
Registers books at ten minutes past ght o'clock in
the morning of the same day Of its execution and
| directly thereafter, on that day, registered
It appears, from the proof that Stephens, OF the
| time he executed the conveyance in trust, had
knowledge of the issuance of the attachment, and
acted with reference 10 it
Under this state of facts the Circuit Judge charg-
| I'd the jury Ii the attachment had set out the
property specially to be attached, then l would say
the defendant had the superior title: but it does
not set out the property and the trust deed was
executed and registered before the levy, am of the
opinion the title acquired by the trust deed is
rior to that acquired by virtue of the levy
! The grounds upon which the Circuit Judge resten
his instructions to the jury appears to have beet
| predicated upon the language of the attachment
| If it had been more specific in its description OF
| the properly to be seized, he would have ruled the
| Jaw otherwise. The attachment in the usual form
| issued against the goods and chattles, lands and
tenements of the defendant and we unable to
perceive how the language of the writ can make Sc
great difference in its effect The former rule OF
construction applied to our attachment laws under
the persistent legislation of the State has been
changed from one of strictness to great hberalty
The remedy by attachment in this court said in the
| case of Runyan vs. Morgan, appears to be favor
lite Win the Legislature ana II Is the duty OF tne
courts to give their language its full force anc
effect. All that is required by the Code, section
Sab is that the writ be directed against the estate
| of the defendant No particular form of word
is necessary and it need not, to make it valid, will
more particularly the property to be seized, snC
the operation and effect of the writ is the same
whether it specially out the property to be at
tached or issues under the statutes broadly again
the estate of the defendant The object of the Leg
isature to prevent the debtor from evading The
attachment after its issuance, and before levy by
sales or transfers Of his estate, and do not fee
Justified in defeasing the policy and wisdom of th'
/ law By refining on the language Of the writ. NJ
other fair and liberal construction be given I,
section 1907 of the Code, which declares "Any
/ transfer sale assignment made after the filing
Of attachment bill to chancery after the suing
out attachment at law, of property mentioned
in the bill or attachment, as against the plaintiff
hall be imperative and void
This court, in the case of Burnaugh, ct al rs
Brooks, ct al, 3, Head 392, has given a similar
construction the act of 1885, ch. A. and the pro
visions of the 9th section of that act Is carried with
AN enlargement of the language, into the Code, anG
we feel, therefore, fully justified, under the liberia
construction that we are bound, TO give the attach
ment laws, in holding that the Circuit Judge erred
in bic instructions to thejury. The judgment viii
be reversed, and new trial awarded.
MILLIGAN, Judge.
Attest J. G. FRAZER, Clerk.
OFFICE OF THE OF SUPREME COURT Nip
DIE DIVISION STATE OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE.
l. Jesse q. Frazer, Clerk of said Court, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is true perfect and com
plete copy of the opinion Of the Court delivered
Its December Term, 1865 in the case of David r
Vance, in error vs.. A. A Cooper, now on file in m!
, office
-, In testimony whereof 1 have hereunt
! LIS. set my hand and affixed the seal of SAT-
49, Court, at Office in the Capitol at Nashville
on the 18th of December, 1855.
: JESSE G. FRAZER Clerk