Difference between revisions of "Cheshire v. Atkinson"

From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Cheshire v. Atkinson''}}
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Cheshire v. Atkinson''}}
[[File:HeningMunfordCheshirevAtkinson1809v2p209.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.pdf|''Cheshire v. Wyld'']], in [Hening & Munford
+
[[File:HeningMunfordCheshirevAtkinson1809v2p209.jpg|link={{filepath:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.pdf|''Cheshire v. Wyld'']], in [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.]]
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'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 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.  
 
[[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1ChesirevAtkinson.pdf|''Cheshire v. Atkinson'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 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.  
Line 18: Line 17:
  
 
[[Category: Cases]]
 
[[Category: Cases]]
 +
[[Category: Procedure]]

Latest revision as of 13:41, 30 July 2018

Cheshire v. Atkinson, 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 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

  1. 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.