Case Name: JAMES STUART vs. PETER RUSSUM
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1842
Citations: 3 Harr. 483
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES STUART vs. PETER RUSSUM.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 483–484

Head Matter:
JAMES STUART vs. PETER RUSSUM.
’he court will not set aside the return to an inquisition on lands merely because the inquisitors estimated the yearly rental value too high,
for because of subsequent judgments, though entered on the same day.
Fi. pa. levied on land. Inquiry held and sufficient.
The inquisitors valued the land at $40 per year beyond all repri-es, and found it sufficient to pay this execution, and all judgments gainst it at the time of inquisition.
Gnllen, for plaintiff,
now obtained a rule to show cause why the iquisition should not be set aside, founded on an affidavit that there rere three judgments entered on the same day of the inquisition, ffiich were not considered, and that the inquisitors valued the land >o high.
Woollen now showed for cause — 1st. That the three judgments atered on the day of the inquisition, were entered after the inquisi-on held. 2d. That the plaintiff had no right to controvert here the nding of the inquisition; and 3d. That the land was worth $40 per sar, which is sufficient to pay all the liens that were against it at e time the inquisition was held.

Opinion:
The Court.
The act authorizing the sale of land is in derogation ' the common law, and must be strictly followed. It authorizes the le of land only where two inquisitors have found that it will not be ifficient in seven years to pay the debt. The judgment of the in-lisitors on this subject is conclusive, unless it be impeached on the ound of fraud or irregularity in holding the inquisition. ^ Where e finding is attacked upon legal grounds, inquiry as to the value is ten brought up incidentally; but by itself this is not sufficient to au-orize the court to set aside the inquisition. If it were so, it would substituting the judgment of this court for'that of the inquisitors in this matter, as to which the law has made them the judges. On the other ground it appears that the judgments were in fact entered after the inquisition found, though on the same day. If this would be sufficient to set aside the inquisition, it would equally be so if judgments were entered at any time between the inquisition and return.
Cullen, for the rule.
Wootlen, contra.
Rule discharged.