Case Name: Den ex dem. of Edward Hardy & Thomas J. Newbern v. Henry N. Jasper
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-12
Citations: 3 Dev. 158
Docket Number: 
Parties: Den ex dem. of Edward Hardy & Thomas J. Newbern v. Henry N. Jasper.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 158–161

Head Matter:
Den ex dem. of Edward Hardy & Thomas J. Newbern v. Henry N. Jasper.
Where an original./?. fa issued to one county, and an alias issued to another, a sale by the defendant of his property situated in the latter county, made while the first writ was in the hands of the sheriff, is valid.
■ Ejectment, submitted at Franklin, on the last spring circuit, to his Honor Judge Norwood, on the following facts :
A judgment was obtained in Bertie County Court against one William J. Jfewbern, at August term 1828, upon which a fi. fa. was made out, tested of that term, but by an agreement between the parties, not delivered to the sheriff. An alias issued, tested of the November term following, which commenced'on the second Monday, being the 10th day, directed to the sheriff of Frank- Ira, wlio returned nulla bona. A pluries issued, tested of .February term 1829, also directed to the sheriff of Franklin, wlio levied the same on the premises mentioned in the declaration, and sold them to the lessors of the plaintiff, to whom lie executed a deed. On the 8th day ofNo-vembor, 1828, W. .7. Jferobern, for a Ml consideration, and bona fde, conveyed the same land to the defendant.
in England, upon suing out therefore an the lands owned by-j^renittionare liable for its satisfaction-.
Upon these facts, his Honor gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. ,
Seaivell, for the plaintiff.
Badger, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Rukkin, Judge.
The court does not deem it necessary to consider the effect, as against .a vendee in Bertie, of the .writ which was made out, kept in the office aftd never issued; .because supposing it to have,been delivered to the Sheriff of Bertie, it is our opinion that it would not invalidate the title of the defendants to the land in Franklin.
No case has been cited at the bar, or found by the court, which extends the lien of any writ beyond the territorial limits in which it can i>e executed. It would seem, that in reason it cannot be carried beyond those bounds ; .butis restrained to them by its terms. It is argued, that it embraces all the property of the defendant, wheresoever situate, upon'the ground that the party shall not defeat the judgment by any act of his. I conceive, that this is unduly enlarging the rule and .the reason. It is not the judgment! hut the execution to which the principle is applied. True it is, that as to lands in England, the judgment,is that to which respect is had; and as that is equally operative in every part of the kingdom, an alienation of the land situate any where after judgment, is void as against iheelegit. Butin reference to the execution of a f. fa. it hinds in England from the delivery, and here from the teste ; and any alienation is avoided, which would defeat the writ. As to chattels then, it is not the judgment, but the execution to which we have regard; and the party is not permitted to defeat the process. But how can this, he predicated of an ' act done in a place, in which the process does not operate ? That writ can in nowise be said to he thereby eluded; and that writ alone can belookedto as affecting the .property. The party is restrained by the writ from disposing of any thing, which by the same writ can be taken in satisfaction of the debt. This is carrying it far enough; for often executions by the fictitious relation to the teste, overreach honest and bonajide sales. We find the law upon that subject certain and settled ; and therefore we cannot change it from any sense of the hardship. In England however, the mischief produced the' provision in stat. 29 Car. 2, c. 3, in favor of purchasers, that no writ offieri facias should bind the property of the goods of the party, but from the delivery to the sheriff. This goes far to show, what was considered in that country to be the law. What was the evil ? That people bought. goods and lost them by force of a writ afterwards sued, which, by a fiction of law, related to a day beyond the purchase. The remedy provided is, that no such fiction shall hereafter exist, but every man may conveniently know whether ho is getting a good title by application to-.the sheriff, and ascertaining whether he has an execution in his hands against those goods. But this protection is manifestly but' a mockery, if he must apply to every sheriff in England, to see whether afieri facias has been lodged in his office. It must mean the sheriff of the county in which the goods are : for to him alone can application be made without an inconvenience,' which would prevent the making of any; and the statute would in fact have no-effectual operation. Now this act of Parliament relates only to the time from which the writ shall bind, and is altogether silent as to the places in which it shall have' force. This last is at common law. But I think the very object of the statute would be defeated as to the time if the place be any other than, the one county or bailiwick mentioned in the writ. And therefore, l take the .law to be there understood, as confining the efficacy of' the writ to the territory mentioned in it, within which it is to. be executed; It is the more necessary that it should, be so.held here, since we have no market over‡,. by sale;#, in which, in England, the goods may he passed even against an execution in that county. The fraudulent contrivances to evade executions by the removal or sale of property may be easily suppressed either by an elegit, or by suing writs oí fieri fiadas to several counties at the same time. Since this can be done, it ought to be required, as affording to purchasers some. opportunity of getting a knowledge of their vendor's power to sell.
But here .lands are bound only by the fifia. from its teste, and sales made after that time of land; situated where the writ does notrun,are valid.
Per Rur-ris, I. An ele-git may be sued out in this state.
I think therefore, the judgment must be affirmed. I . shall of course be understood, when speaking of defeating the particular writ, as not meaning to impeach the efficacy of an alias,- as such, directed to the sheriff who had the originalfieri fiadas.
Per Curiam — Judgment aefirMeb.