Beebe v. United States
Citations
- 161 U.S. 104
- 16 S. Ct. 532
- 40 L. Ed. 633
- 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2145
Syllabus
<p>In Alabama a judgment in itself imposes no lien upon the property of the judgment debtor, but the issue of an execution ind its delivery to the officer are necessary to create a lien.</p> <p>According to the settled rule in Alabama, when an execution comes to the hands of the sheriff the lien attaches and continues from term to term, provided alias and pluries writs are duly issued and delivered, and while it is so kept alive the lien is, upon levy and sale, paramount .to any intermediate conveyance by the debtor; and as, in this case, the facts show that valid executions were issued and delivered to the marshal as early as' January 23, -1877, and on return alias executions were duly issued and duly levied, the subsequent sale related back to the original issue, and took the legal title out of the plaintiff in error prior to his deed of March 22, 1877.,</p> <p>When it appears.by a memorandum on judgment records that “by consent execution is stayed until ” a date named, and execution issues before that date, it will be presumed, nothing appearing to the contrary, that it was rightly issued, and that either the agreement lacked consideration, or • was not authorized, or had been by mutual assent annulled, or that the terms of the agreement had not been complied with by defendant.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[I]n respect of an execution issued on a judgment confessed prematurely ... the execution may be erroneous and irregular, [but] it must be respected and enforced until vacated by motion to quash .... ”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fuller, Gray, Peokham
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Bharat Patel, Alibaba Charchor, Inc. And Mukesh PatelSixth Circuit· 2006-04-26· cited 125×
- Kochtitzky v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri· 1911-07-03· cited 30×
- Johnson v. Puritan Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court· 1896-12-14· cited 16×
- Lomax v. SpriggsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1979-07-30· cited 13×
- In re CaseyN.D. New York· 1912-04-17· cited 11×
- Days Inns Worldwide v. Alibaba CharchorSixth Circuit· 2006-04-26
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.