Case Name: Beach v. Camp
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1791-01
Citations: 1 Root 241
Docket Number: 
Parties: Beach v. Camp.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
Beach v. Camp.
Where it appears in a levy upon land, that the debtor chose an appraiser, the title is good although it doth not appear, in the officer’s return, that he made a previous demand of money, etc.
Actioh of ejectment. Plea no wrong, etc. Issue to the court.
Plaintiff’s title, the levy of an execution. The officer’s return was, August 7th A. D. 1790, by direction of the creditor’s attorney, I levied upon certain lands of the debtor bounded as follows, etc. viz. describes the land, and the creditor chose one man to be an appraiser and tbe debtor chose one man to he an appraiser and the creditor and, debtor agreed upon for the third appraiser, all indifferent freeholders of the town of who being duly sworn, appraised said land as the law directs, at £ lawful money.
The defendant excepted against the title of the plaintiff, because it did not appear by the officer’s return, that he had made demand of money, etc. previous to his levying on the land; which the law made requisite, and without which no title could be created..
Judgment — For the plaintiff to recover.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The statute makes it the duty of the officer, to repair to the debtor's usual place of abode, and to make demand of money, etc. to satisfy an execution, where it can be done, previous to his levying upon land; and the officer might be liable to the debtor, in such case, for not doing his duty; but it might be attended with ill consequences, as to creditors -and. purchasers under executions, if the levy under such circumstances should be void; but in this case, the debtor's being -notified of the levy and choosing one appraiser and agreeing to -a third, without any objection, induces a strong presumption, that the officer had made proper demand; or that the debtor at that .time agreed to waive it, and that the land should be taken.'
Same point was 'determined by court and jury in an action Gold, etc. v. Carrington, at Hartford adjourned Superior (Court, A. D. 1773; the officer's return was, that by.direction of the creditor he levied the execution on land, and the debtor chose one of the appraisers, etc. and no return was mads of any demand of personal estate on the execution^ and notwithstanding this exception was taken to the plaintifE's title, the plaintiff recovered the land.