Difference between revisions of "Cheshire v. Atkinson"
From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
m (→The Court's Decision) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Cheshire v. Atkinson''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Cheshire v. Atkinson''}} | ||
| − | [[File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson. | + | [[File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.pdf|''Cheshire v. Wyld'']], in [Hening & Munford |
| + | http://wm-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/01COWM_WM:EVERYTHING:01COWM_WM_ALMA21593279330003196 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: with Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District''], by William Hening and William Munford. 2nd ed. Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809.]] | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
| − | [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.pdf|''Cheshire v. Atkinson'']], Hening & Munford Vol. I 209 (1807),<ref>William Hening and William Munford, '' | + | [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.pdf|''Cheshire v. Atkinson'']], Hening & Munford Vol. I 209 (1807),<ref>William Hening and William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: with Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District,'' 2nd ed. (Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809), 1:209.</ref> the court determined whether a sheriff could be attached for carrying out a decree from a judge, although the sheriff knew the case was pending appeal. |
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
A very brief case where the court determined that the plaintiff could not bring an attachment against a sheriff for carrying out a decree from a judge, just because he had notice of an appeal. | A very brief case where the court determined that the plaintiff could not bring an attachment against a sheriff for carrying out a decree from a judge, just because he had notice of an appeal. | ||
| + | |||
===The Court's Decision=== | ===The Court's Decision=== | ||
The Court found the attachment proceeding would not apply against the sheriff. | The Court found the attachment proceeding would not apply against the sheriff. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category: Cases]] | [[Category: Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 13:16, 4 March 2018
File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.jpg
First page of the opinion Cheshire v. Wyld, in [Hening & Munford http://wm-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/01COWM_WM:EVERYTHING:01COWM_WM_ALMA21593279330003196 Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: with Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District], by William Hening and William Munford. 2nd ed. Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809.
Cheshire v. Atkinson, Hening & Munford Vol. I 209 (1807),[1] the court determined whether a sheriff could be attached for carrying out a decree from a judge, although the sheriff knew the case was pending appeal.
Background
A very brief case where the court determined that the plaintiff could not bring an attachment against a sheriff for carrying out a decree from a judge, just because he had notice of an appeal.
The Court's Decision
The Court found the attachment proceeding would not apply against the sheriff.
See also
References
- ↑ William Hening and William Munford, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: with Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, 2nd ed. (Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809), 1:209.
