Hooks v. Byrd
Hooks v. Byrd
Opinion of the Court
Tbe opinion of tbe Court was delivered by .
In tbe return to tbe rule, tbe sheriff states “that tbe funds in bis bands arose from tbe sale of tbe goods in store belonging to Byrd & Louis, copartners in trade,” and bis excuse for declining to pay over tbe money to tbe plaintiff conceded to be tbe senior execution creditor, is, that be received in May last a written notice from J. H. Oppenbeim, alleging himself to be a creditor of tbe firm of Byrd & Louis, not to pay these funds to tbe individual debts of "W. E. Byrd, and in August last a verbal -notice to tbe same effect. By reference to tbe proceedings in tbe sheriff’s office, it appears further that the interest of Byrd in tbe store was levied on and sold as a whole, and purchased by tbe partner, Louis, from whom tbe money was received.
Tbe rule is, where, contests arise between parties claiming a fund in tbe bands of a sheriff, often a mere stakeholder, in cases of doubt to leave tbe parties to litigate and determine tbeir rights otherwise than by rule against tbe sheriff. Dawkins vs. Pearson, 2 Bail. 619. There is a manifest propriety often in extending tbis rule so as to include outstanding equities, subject, however, to reasonable limits and restraints. Tbe summary remedy by attachment should be used to enforce tbe judgment of tbe Court, in every instance where tbe refusal of tbe officer savors at all of contempt. In tbe case before us, tbe plaintiff’s rights, established by solemn judgment, are opposed by one known to tbe Court upon bis mere allegation
Motion granted.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.