Case Name: Wharton v. Fitch et al.
Court: Michigan Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1843-03
Citations: 1 Walk. Ch. 143
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wharton v. Fitch et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the court of chancery of the state of michigan
Volume: 1
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
Wharton v. Fitch et al.
Where plaintiff’s attorney instructed the sheriff not to levy on real estate, and, on the return of the execution unsatisfied, filed a judgment creditor’s bill, and obtained an injunction, the injunction was dissolved on a plea of the defendant stating the instructions given to the officer, and that defendant offered to turn out real estate to be levied 'on, when called on by the officer with the execution.
Motion to dissolve an injunction which had been allowed on a judgment creditor’s bill.
The motion was founded on a plea of the defendant, Fitch, on whose behalf it was made. The plea stated, among other things, that defendant was informed by the officer having the execution, and believed, that the plaintiff’s attorney, at the time he delivered the execution to the officer, instructed him not to levy on real estate. That, when the officer called on defendant with the execution, defendant informed him he was seized in his own right, and in fee simple, of real estate within the bailiwick of the officer, subject to levy and sale, in value far exceeding the amount of the execution; and that he was willing it should be levied on, and offered to show it to the officer, and give him a description of it. That the officer declined to levy on it, and gave as a reason the aforesaid instructions given to him by the plaintiff’s attorney. That defendant was, in fact, at that time, the owner in fee simple of certain real estate, which he then described, stating the value of each particular piece or parcel, and whether it was incumbered or not, and the amount of the incumbrance. The plea also stated that defendant was still the owner in fee simple of all the said real estate, except one piece, (describing it,) which he had sold; and that such real estate was worth more than ten times the amount of the execution. The plea was verified in the usual form by the defendant, and also by the officer, so far as it related to his acts and the instructions given to him by the complainant’s attorney.
T. Romeyn, in support of the motion.
G. Miles, contra.

Opinion:
The Chancellor
dissolved the injunction.