New York Supreme Court, 1844

Milliken v. Selye

Milliken v. Selye
New York Supreme Court · Decided July 15, 1844 · Nelson
6 Hill & Den. 623

Counsel

E. Mather, for the plaintiff., J. C. Campbell, for the defendant.

Milliken v. Selye

Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Nelson, Ch. J.

The plea is bad for the reason assigned in the special cause of demurrer. The statute forbids the execution of a writ of replevin in any case, unless the requisite affidavit and bond be delivered to the sheriff. A compliance with the statute is in the nature of a condition precedent *624to the right of serving the writ; and if there he no compliance, the writ is a nullity. (2 R. S. 523, § 7; Berrien v. Westervelt, 12 Wend. 194.)

Independently of this objection, the plea was probably well enough. After the taking by virtue of a writ of» replevin, the property is to be deemed in custodio/m legis, and therefore not liable to distress; (Co. Lit. 476; Willes, 136 ; Comyn's Land. Ten. 377;) and a reasonable time is allowed to remove it. (Gilbert v. Moody, 17 Wend. 358.)

Judgment for the defendants.

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