Case Name: Beckley against Boardman
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1827-06
Citations: 6 Conn. 372
Docket Number: 
Parties: Beckley against Boardman:
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
Beckley against Boardman:
IN ERROR.
A. having obtained a judgment in the county court against B., took out execution, and had it levied on his personal property; after which, B. brought a writ of error, and had it served on A. and the officer holding the execution; not withstanding this, the officer collected the execution. The writ of error was returned to the superior court, and the judgment of the county court was reversed. A. being a bankrupt, B. moved for an order upon the officer to pay into court the money so collected. Held, that such order would not be made; but if the officer had notice not to pay over the money to A., and had, notwithstanding such notice, paid it over, B. could sustain indebitalus assumpsit against him for it; if he had paid it over, without notice, B. was remediless as against him.
Litchfield,
June, 1827.
Boardman obtained a judgment, in the county court, against Beckley, and having taken out execution, caused it to be levied on his personal property. Beckley then sued out a writ of error on such judgment, and had it served on the creditor and the officer holding the execution. After this, the officer collected the execution. The writ of error was duly returned to the superior court; and the judgment of the county court was reversed. The defendant in error being a bankrupt, the plaintiff in error moved the superior court for an order upon the officer to pay into court the money collected upon the execution. Upon these facts the question arising upon such motion was reserved for the advice of this Court.
The case was now submitted without argument.

Opinion:
By the Court:
No rule will be made upon the officer in this case. But if he had notice not to pay the money over to Boardman, and has, notwithstanding such notice, made payment, the plaintiff in error may sustain indebitalus assumpsit against him for the money. If he paid it over without notice, the plaintiff in error is without redress as against him.
Motion denied.