Stevens v. Diehl
Stevens v. Diehl
Opinion of the Court
It may be, as between the parties, the sale on the two executions, Nos. 1 and 4 to September Term 1887, at the suit of William II. Leighou v. Benjamin Reichenbach and Jacob Probst, operated as a satisfaction of the judgments on which the executions were issued. This was so at law, but not necessarily so in equity. It was believed by both the parties to the transaction, that the sheriff’s sale was an abortive proceeding, and that the plaintiff who bought the property took no title. He had not received any actual satisfaction for his debt. To remedy this difficulty, the defendants in the judgment confessed the $624.50 judgment, which was for the same debt, and under it an execution was issued, and the same property again levied upon and sold to the plaintiff. His title was thus perfected. We see nothing objectionable in this. There was no fraud upon other creditors. It appears to have been done in entire good faith and for the sole purpose of perfecting a title sup
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- A. W. STEVENS v. OLIVER DIEHL
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- (a) At a sheriff’s sale on a writ from a judgment confessed on an individual note given by one of two partners for money borrowed and used for the benefit of the firm, certain property was purchased by the judgment creditor. (&) Learning afterwards that the property was partnership property, and fearing his title thereto was imperfect, the purchaser obtained from the partners a firm note, on which a judgment was confessed, execution issued, sale had, and the same property again purchased by him. 1. In equity, as between the parties, the first execution sale was inoperative as a satisfaction of the indebtedness ; in the second execution sale upon a judgment which was for the same debt, executed and accepted in entire good faith, there was no fraud upon other creditors and the purchaser’s title was thus perfected.