Gano v. Davis
Gano v. Davis
Opinion of the Court
It is assigned as an error in this cause, that Davis (who was the plaintiff in the court below) has directed the second execution to be discharged, after ascertaining the sum due by the indorsement on the first which had not been returned, and the return of which by law was not in the power of the defendant to procure. The court finds that on the execution complained of is indorsed, “ Or. this execution for £90 paid plaintiff in the year 1800. The late sheriff has the former execution in his hands, from which the date of the credit can be ascertained. Thos. T. Davis.” If this indorsement had never been made nor the first execution returned, the defendant could only have been relieved in chancery. But as the indorsement was made on the second execution without fixing the time at which the £90 should be applied to the credit of a judgment for a debt which bears interest until paid, the injustice can be arrested by this court; and as it has been its uniform practice
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.