Case Name: Van Wyck vs. Pine & Pine
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1842-05
Citations: 2 Hill & Den. 666
Docket Number: 
Parties: Van Wyck vs. Pine & Pine.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hill's Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 666–670

Head Matter:
Van Wyck vs. Pine & Pine.
In order to constitute a valid levy on goods in virtue of afi. fa., they must be within view of the officer at the time, and subject to his immediate disposition and control; especially as against one who subsequently purchases them from the debtor, without notice of the levy.
Accordingly, in trover by a sheriff for a pair of oxen alleged to have been levied on by him under afi.fa. against T., where it appeared that the plaintiff’s deputy, having the writ, went upon the farm of T. and in his presence levied upon several articles of property—that an inventory was thereupon made, partly in the hand-writing of T. and partly in that of the deputy—that the former made an entry therein of “ five horned cattle,” two of which, the oxen in question, were then in another lot about eighty rods off, but not in sight of the deputy; and that T., being left in possession, subsequently sold the oxen to the defendants without notice of the levy: Held, that the sheriff could not recover; for, however the matter might stand as between him and the debtor, the levy was invalid as against the defendants.
Cowen, J. dissented, holding the levy good as against the execution debtor, and that a good levy as to him would, in general, bind the property as against his vendees.
Error to the Dutchess O. P. Van Wyck sued I. & P. Pine before a justice and declared in traver for two oxen, alleging that he had levied upon them, as sheriff, in virtue of an execution against Thompson, to whom they belonged. Issue being joined and atrial had, the justice gave judgment for the plaintiff for $100. The defendants appealed to the C. P.; and on the trial' in that court the following facts appeared, viz: That in May, 1840, the plaintiff’s deputy came to Thompson’s house with a view of levying the execution. Thompson went on his farm with the officer, who there levied upon a number of articles. An inventory was taken of the property, a part of the en tries being made by the deputy and a part by Thompson. Among the latter, was an entry of “ five horned cattle,” three of which were in the same field with the officer, in plain sight, and the other two, (the oxen in question,) were in another lot on the same farm, about eighty rods distant, but were not seen by the deputy by reason of an intervening hill. It further appeared, among other things, that after the levy, Thompson remained in possession, and that in June following he sold and delivered the oxen in question to the defendants, in whose possession they were at the commencement of the suit. There was no evidence that the defendants knew of the execution when they bought the cattle; and they insisted that no sufficient levy had been made. The court below charged the jury thus : “That to constitute a levy, the officer making it must not only have the property under his power or control, but he must actually see it; and hence though the jury believe that the deputy might and could have taken and driven the oxen in question from off the farm when the alleged levy was made, yet, if he did not see them, there was no levy in law, and the verdict should be for the defendants.” The plaintiff excepted to the charge, and the jury rendered a verdict for the defendants. Judgment having been rendered in the court below, the plaintiff sued out a writ of error.
L. Maison, for the plaintiff in error,
cited Wood v. Vanarsdale, (3 Rawle’s Rep. 401 ;) Trovillo v. Tilford, (6 Watts’ Rep. 468 ;) Green v. Burke, 23 Wend. 493, 4 ;) Gilkey v. Dickerson, (3 Hawks’ Rep. 293 ;) Beekman v. Lansing, (3 Wend. 450;) Wintringham, v. Lafoy, (7 Cowen, 735 ;) Allen v. Crary, (10 Wend. 350 ;) Connah v. Hale, (23 Wend. 462;) Butler v. Maynard, (11 Wend. 550 ;) Westervelt v. Pinckney, (14 id. 124 ;) Ray v. Harcourt, (19 id. 497.)
C. W. Swift, for the defendants in error,
cited 2 R. S. 289, § 17, 2d ed. ; Haggerty v. Wilber, (16 John. Rep.
287 ;) Beekman v. Lansing, (3 Wend. 446;) Westervelt v. Pinckney, (14 id. 123;) Ray v. Harcourt, (19 id. 495.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case is not distinguishable in principle from Ray v. Harcourt, (19 Wend. 495, 497.) We there held that to constitute a valid levy, the goods should be within the view of the officer, and subject to his immediate disposition and control. They were clearly not so in the case at bar, and the defendants knew nothing of the execution when they purchased. It is not necessary to decide the question whether the levy was good so far as the execution debtor is concerned. It is enough that it be invalid as against the defendants. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.