Superior Court of Delaware, 1858

Daniels v. Alexander.

Daniels v. Alexander.
Superior Court of Delaware · Decided July 5, 1858 · <italic>By the Court:</italic>
7 Del. 39

Counsel

Rodney, for the defendant, now moved to quash the writ for this reason. Because it should have contained such a clause, in order that it might appear by the return of the sheriff that there were no goods, or not sufficient to satisfy the judgment, before the lands and tenements of the defendant were liable to be seized and levied on under the judgment. Spruance for the plaintiff: The fi. fa. and return of nulla bona on the judgment below, and before its entry in this court on transcript by virtue of that return, was sufficient for this purpose.

Daniels v. Alexander.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

The object of the statute in providing for the entry of the judgment here on transcript after a return of nulla bona to a fi. fa. issued by the justice of the peace, on the judgment, is to make it a lien on the real estate of the defendant, if he has any, and to give the plaintiff an execution against the lands of the defendant, which he had not below, and not against his goods, which he had below. The transcript of the execution and return of nulla bona filed of record here, was equivalent under the circumstances and according to the operation and design of the statute, to a return of nulla bona on a fi.fa. issued out of this court in the case, because it appears by the record that there were no goods; and such must be presumed to be the fact, unless the contrary were shown. The execution is therefore regular, and the motion must be refused.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.