, 1880-08-06
what Constitutes levy, and the Rights
OF Attachment Creditors.
Remedial Low With Retrospective Attlen Dsss Not
Impair Vested Rights.
New Suits, Divotees, Confessions, and
~ Judgments.
APPELLATE COURT.

sNsn. a,Iourn until October. Tho following
isa list of cascs decided:
REVERSED ASp lsEslANDED.
les, Marahull r. Morriaaoy.
sp sp Fans y. q pconroF. :.
Et CITY y. 1Irrity.
sis S flabarty :. Mccormick.
81 NscS}rs NNss.}rt Y: !: hE,et'o"' s{oen.
a. I,'s;t ISt'', :; pesisii e. i4s'iiondln,
6ta kltnbnrls Y. snmc.
6ta, lteiutng =; iil!aw1n'
ez e Csas Cs!caru Northwestern n. n. Co. Y. How
'T5!. H.. Chicago City l.a,lr0ad Company '. Frec.
81 g. an'sosS ety s shoter & carquev,o I',hograph-
ins e. t1!arInIsa car9sISo '. scbnstlar. ... .
Company ,.r,,,,r,
rs, Tol,r y. 1sob,nsorl, ;,
III. Tlytlcy v. City,.
Nid Xon1pactnun V. vcdaer.
81 r. ecS"a"lioy: eaii Y. unlon Mutual L'fe-1nsur.
'pss s. eePs f19Mans Insurance Company V. ohastor-
'9Sa:I' 81 A!e1;sna{ss Y. :, rSon1s pst,pIe
Fl, M *eSh%onwaid !. p!odeu.
6Ya kuisc'y y: simpson.
81 s W:fa|s Wa|sn sutaai s'f Insurance Company
stSt. 81. HeneyoIcni 1 Assoeiatlon Y. Far7ell.
ti5. IIupson Y. Iintchlnson:
6ii. Metropolitan City Hallway Conpnuy Y.
''iyi Y the case Of tho city Of Chicago vs. Tho
nary, In which the latter sued 70 recover the
value Oh. 4 lot Of blnnks,, S5W.1o, tho Court
hsid that tho Controller had not tho power
10 order any such work unless autl!orizetI 70
II the City Council. Judgment Of tho lower
Court reversed.
NIGHTS OF ATTACHMENT CREDITORS
Tho case Of Charles e., 2, Culver and others M
against nu1nsey & Walker Involved some
erSstnfE ~ s fS Sa"eiiq%s e. %ssas Is e9is% 1s RaseS '
creditor named August, 5Iarttr, md
assumed to levy on two carloads Of wheat
t5om Gt tte lily: The levy WIS mads by going
10 tho offlco of the Baltimore &; Ohio liailroaa
Company, whence tho grain had been sl'ipped
only q few minutes before the arrival OF tho
nient between Runisey md Rich, tho agent
8 Sea ia sad sspxnsd ER e Kngso M x ii or o1aet s
give Run,scy an opportunity to make tho
ment on tbs Baltimore & Ohio Road MS
garnishccs,, and. ut the same time ap-
pointed Rich. the Company's ngcnt, ~
asos 4strnoa q y e pr9pi5y Fa h. f11f b
Rich did not take any charge Of them other M
than as treight~agent IT the Company. Tho
whpat WINS. however, by direction OF tho
Sheriff, sent to warehouse and uiloadcd,
OF the Sheriff.. The wheat amounted TO o1o
bushels, which rllowever, included l5s bush
els attached BY the same officer in n car in
fha same day The grain;;Was returned hero
Henry HenmelRAFn sued CHI nn attach
.PMsnt, fronl the Superior Court aEninsst 't;nIns
Alss Az is2lea III g on ths ep'ys! Same srss III
Court, and returnable to the, same. term.
judgments were aft4;rward rendered ~ tavo!
sn6seqenty n motion M ese wa maae AID
allowed in the Circuit, Court in favor, Of
pay oydr to them $7Go3s4. the, amount q, the
ams s 81 " Il Ts psiSste sas e 81 ss u Desfa *
aF sf Dc d g essss' sSa bsiSss i % }aagasns t.
. qSse Rssy a. 1 sSnF FE ha sSS fa9 Raasey s
& Walker was sufficient Tho rule WIS that
III order to make n. valid. levy of m attach
msnt tho property levied On must be within
not be for moment pretended that such was
tie case In the pzes:nt Instance; The prop,
erty was twelve miles away Wien ths !eyy
p rs ssRfd R s t. daepeas as %sas III III s Icy ess
btcume M inclplont lu,i on the grain. Nor
tled BY IS attempted, appolnt!ueni
v he eossSssion Of fse tha compssy ony
Furthermore, until the officer bud acquired
p!a to tho property w making yalid levy
ae a he h9d ~; ~ authority to appoi4t & custodian
at all. The Endorsement on the wit was ol
sn ay Ike tGF saa pass sxy e e 6besse S ys
SSherif could only obiaIh q right to control
sxs'sr lii HI ws s aa af sSt tsfB g. j. aa I'D
tute lsyy: Tho Hepmelearn aitash
Meht 74fh IL hayng been lyyted on II. II.
10Th. they must 30 held to have been ars
i b1shts Is IT, atasea sa e On ~ }hs XIII
tai tean e., central m ear. thSre waa no Question bu
wers sssa eonesasa si III Gi H;u Nuinse!
&Wa!ser originally had flrst lin on III
Rtslt, by their subsequent conduct ~ selllnl
tSs5SSseSt S5SeSty S oePF Ptysf ayeo4s sa' dyr Sy si $ u
as;nqis,. ss;qis,. The statuta made no provision 70
sdSiIlns prgIperty a. private salo, rs luMse
svar unfS, 1nlv any ci6emste'Ess ,,s enss VIVA,
On attachment. In any manner prior to tn
mndIiton sen'!it Of Judgment anu the Issuing Of
speclat execution, and that was when TIL
property was OF q perIsl,ablo nature, ant
Mea Yen 4 cnufd only b., made at public auction
tIp3ell a. privatA sole goods ln the oustoa.
9! ! ule Jay was mt only a frRNd in fact, but
Asua III law; and r. done III pursuance Of al
arrangement made by the cxecuu uon creditor
oaSo 9e %SoHd bc postponed % a junior wHk n
tsn, tSoaht Aumsay acted without fraudulent II
E1aE hui, the lcass penalty the law coul
tu4es na.es IN such case was, t
EatpQn4 ,hlm tp any other creditor
sHe Maose rights might have BEEN unfav0rabl.
thass tthttstea: fhB c0lIoluslon necessarily. was
eaeh. that the order of tho Court belo,
Smalath9, the, money to NuMgoy d Wake
ms.t mss smttqneous. m Thu llenllnetgsyn attach
s6ss III ~ as tf!e Culver attachment was return
toist!xet s ~ eae same term, It must be allowct
"a s;na!e ;Da!e pro rata with HeinnlelRarn. undo
~ !aw. II was urged that Culver and ueul
sssee1aEn being AuitOrs tu tie Superior Cout
ssD99a not coma fnto the Circuit Cou1
~. a ask TO- have thb money d
I9 awarded, to thcul. but BY Sec
Tn,a ula Attachment act very aulple power
oY MYStS ig given to Courts III making dlstsius.tIo
fhsMtNe Me proceeds OF attached property. It VA
ffasa PROVIDED that tho Court might at oil