Post v. Bird

Citations

• 28 Fla. 1

Syllabus

<p>1. A process emanating from a court of competent jurisdiction and not void upon its face should he executed by the officer to whom it is properly directed, according to its commands, and it does not comport with Iris duty as an executive officer to pass judgment upon the validity of such process and execute it or not as he may judge best.</p> <p>2. A writ of attachment emanating from a court of competent jurisdiction. returnable on the day of its issuance, or to the next term of the court, instead of the next rule day, is not void, and the officer to whom it is directed will he protected in executing it according to its exigency.</p> <p>3. A general exception to the charge of (he court to the jury will not be sustained if the charge contain a single correct proposition of law applicable to the case.</p> <p>4. Where the exception to a portion of the charge is, that the court failed to give an additional or qualifying- clause, if the portion of the charge excepted to is good so far as it goes, the ohly way the party excepting- can avail himself of such an exception is by requesting the court to give the additional or qualifying clause, and if it be refused to except to the ruling of the court.</p> <p>5. A charge to the jury which does not submit for their consideration any facts which they may not consider as proven by the testimony introduced in the case, is not erroneous as assuming facts not proven.</p> <p>6. Property claimed to be fraudulently conveyed as to creditors may be seized on proper proceedings instituted by them for that purpose, and such seizure may be defended by showing that the conveyance is fraudulent as to creditors, and in such case the title to the property does not pass to the fraudulent grantee as against said creditors, and said property may be subjected to the payment of their demands. But the case is different whenever the conveyed property has been sold by the grantee and its identity gone. The proceeds arising from such sale cannot be l