Case Name: Insurance Company of Pennsylvania against Ketland
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1809-01-04
Citations: 1 Binn. 499
Docket Number: 
Parties: Insurance Company of Pennsylvania against Ketland.
Judges: Per Curiam. Motion denied.
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Binney)
Volume: 1
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
Insurance Company of Pennsylvania against Ketland.
Wednesday, January 4th.
Where the sheriff levies upon goods in the defendant's possession, the court will not stay proceedings and direct an issue, to try the property, upon an allegation that the goods belong to a third person.
THE household furniture of the defendant was taken under a fi. fa., and the sheriff at this term returned his writ " levied as per inventory." Before the levy, the sheriff had been indemnified by the plaintiff; and after the return, a venditioni exponar issued, returnable at next March term. On a former day a motion was made on behalf of the sheriff to amend 1809. bis return, by adding “ that the goods mentioned in the inven- “ t017> were» at the time of the levy made, claimed by James “ Lyle and others as their property, by virtue of an assignment “ by the defendant, dated the 4th of January 1806;” and Up0n an affidavit that it was his intention at the time to make this addition a part of his return, but that it was omitted by accident, the court after argument permitted the amendment.
Tod, for the defendant,
Ingersoll with Tod.
Dallas contra.
now moved the court to stay proceedings on the execution, and to direct an issue to try in whom was the property of the goods. He said that the sheriff himself had the power to impanel a jury for this purpose if he doubted of the property, 2 Bac. Abr. 715.; and that the court should exercise the same power under the circumstances of this case, though the sheriff should choose to decline it.

Opinion:
The Court
asked whether a precedent for such a motion was any where to be found; and told the counsel that if they thought there was, they should have time to search for it, though it was the last day of the court's sitting; but the counsel answered that they were not aware of any precedent, and therefore would not ask for time. Whereupon
Per Curiam. Motion denied.
END OE DECEMBER TERM, 1808.