{
  "id": 8690330,
  "name": "Den ex. dem. of Jonathan S. Tayloe & another v. Fen & David Gaskins",
  "name_abbreviation": "Den ex. dem. of Tayloe v. Gaskins",
  "decision_date": "1827-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "295",
  "last_page": "296",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Dev. 295"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. 295"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 Hawks 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        8681851
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/11/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Hawks 829",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2360,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.317,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4278499527874615e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6502743982371173
    },
    "sha256": "417d49d7358e0be49c8db10d32f51baac6834cc82ff7346312f5c44e2364c72f",
    "simhash": "1:acf1c0658bee05a4",
    "word_count": 422
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:07.907129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Den ex. dem. of Jonathan S. Tayloe & another v. Fen & David Gaskins,"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tayior, Chief-Justice\nThe lessors .of the Plaintiff claim title under a Sheriff\u2019s sale, (nade on the day the Fi. fa. was returnable ; and the only question in the case is, whether such a sale is legal ? Xthas been repeatedly decided, that the Sheriff may lawfully execute an execution on the day it is returnable. As to chattels, if he levy before, he may sell after the return-day; and. as to land, a sale on the day is unquestionably valid. The general rule is explicitly stated in 1 Salk. 321, and the cases there cited. The case cited for the Defendant,from 4tb Hawks, was where tin* sale took place more than a year after the teste of the execution, and without a venditioni exponas ; where tfie writ had never been returned, and the endorsement of the levy made under questionable circumstances, being after the sale. There the execution was dead in law ; here it was in full vigor.\nThe judgment should be affirmed.\nHam, Judge.\nThe question made in this case is, whether the Sheriff can legally sell lands on the first day of the term to which the execution is returnable ? Against it, is cited Basden v. McKinne. In that case, the Sheriff sold about two years after the execution was returnable and without any new execution. But this question is put at rest by the judgment given in the case of Lanier v. Stone, (1 Hawks 829). It. is there stated to be the daily practice, and no inconvenience has been experienced from it. It is often done at the importunity of Defendants, to give them the longest possible time to raise the money.\nThe rule for a new trial must be discharged.\nPer Curiam. \u2014 Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tayior, Chief-Justice Ham, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hogg, for the Appellant,",
      "No Counsel appeared for the Plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Den ex. dem. of Jonathan S. Tayloe & another v. Fen & David Gaskins,\nFrom Bertie.\nA sale made by the Sheriff on the return-day of the Fi. fa. is good.\nEjectment, and on the trial the case was, that the lessors of the Plaintiff claimed the premises under a deed from the Sheriff of Bertie. The judgment and execution were regular ; but the sale was made by the Sheriff on the second Monday of August, 1825, which was, the return day of the writ.\nHis honor Judge Martin, instructed the Jury, that the sale was good in law, A verdict being returned for the Plaintiff, the Defendant appealed.\nHogg, for the Appellant,\nsubmitted the case, only referring to Doe ex dem. of Basden v. McKinne, (4 Hawks 279).\nNo Counsel appeared for the Plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0295-01",
  "first_page_order": 295,
  "last_page_order": 296
}