Case Name: The Commercial Bank of Manchester vs. Adamson Waters et al.
Court: High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1848-01
Citations: 10 S. & M. 559
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commercial Bank of Manchester vs. Adamson Waters et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 559–559

Head Matter:
The Commercial Bank of Manchester vs. Adamson Waters et al.
An equity of redemption in slaves is not the subject of execution ; a levy, therefore, on such equity should be set aside.
A supersedeas is not the proper remedy for the violation, by a plaintiff in execution, of an injunction against the issuance of execution; the proper corrective is by an attachment against the party, or his attorney, for contempt.
In error from the circuit court of Yazoo county; Hon. Robert C. Perry, judge.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
W. R. Miles, for plaintiff in error,
cited 3 Jac. I., c. 8; 12 Car. II., c. 2; 16 and 17 Car. II., c. 8, § 3; H. & H. Dig. 538, $39, p. 341, $60; 4 S. & M. 484-490; lb. 513-175.
R. S. Holt, for defendants in error,
on the point that the equity of redemption could not be levied on, cited 4 S. & M. 163; and argued at length, that the supersedeas was properly retained, because of the injunction.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Clayton
delivered the opinion of the court.
A motion was made in the circuit court of Yazoo, to set aside a levy in this case upon an equity of redemption in slaves, and to supersede the execution, because the bank was at the time under a quo warranto and injunction, under the law of 1843. The court granted both motions.
It is settled, that an equity of redemption in personalty, is not the subject of execution sale; it was right, therefore, to set aside the levy. Thornhill v. Gilmer, 4 S. & M. 153.
But for the violation of the injunction, even if there were a valid injunction, the remedy was not by supersedeas. An attachment against the party, or the attorney, was the proper corrective. The question as to the validity of the injunction, would thus have been directly presented. For this reason, the judgment is reversed, and the supersedeas discharged.
Judgment reversed.