Title
File:CallsReports1854V3BullockvGoodall.pdf
Bullock v. Goodall, Call Vol. III 39 (1801),[1] was a case where the court determined whether a sheriff could be charged a fine for executing a judgment.
Background
In May 1792, John Bullock, Jr. obtained an order from the County Court of Hanover to collect a debt against his father's estate. The order was sent to Deputy Sheriff Clough, who levied all of Bullock's father's property and sold it at auction. During the auction, Bullock transformed from creditor to purchaser and bought his father's estate for three-fourths of the market price for which he endorsed a receipt for the sale. In May 1795, John Bullock, Jr. obtained a default judgment against Sheriff Goodall. The judgment was a fine against the sheriff for Clough's failure to return the original court order to Bullock. In response, both Sheriff Goodall and Deputy Clough filed an injunction in the High Court of Chancery. The pair claimed that Clough did not return the court order due to a pending settlement agreement between Bullock and Clough. The injunction prayed the Court to grant relief against Bullock's money judgment.
The Court's Decision
On May 12th, 1798, Chancellor Wythe dismissed the judgment in favor of Goodall and Clough. Bullock appealed to the Court of Appeals claiming the Chancery Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. After considering the evidence and weighing the three year delay in Bullock's claim, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the Chancellor’s decision.
See also
References
- ↑ Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 39.
