
    Bliss against Ball.
    NEW YORK,
    May, 1812.
    A fi. fa. was issued the 14th -April, 1810, awásíiciiveved and his prii i8ii, B. par-of A. bonajkie, intent to dZ eution^whicli lay dormant an the hands of the sheriff, !;T&y,theim* and “sold ‘the cow; it was being no evíactual levy by the sheriff on the goods and chattels of a, the sale to B• was valid, and "he execution.
    IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
    
      Ball sued Bliss before the justice, in trespass quare clausum fregit, for breaking his close and taking away and converting to his own use a brindled cow. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and also that, under a writ of fieri facias issued out of the court of common pleas of Lewis county, at the suit of Nash against Morton, he, as deputy sheriff, took and sold the cow, as the property of Morion. At the trial before the justice, it appeared in evidence, that Bliss did take the cow from the possession of Bally who had purchased the cow, at a fair price, of Morton. The cow was sold by the defendant at auction, on the execution against Morton, on the 25th May, 1811. The fi. fa. issued the 14th April, 1810, on a judgment of May term, 1809. 1 he cow belonged to Morton at the time the execution issued, an continued his property until purchased by Ball, in April, igll. The defendant proved, that in 1810, Morton had two cows; r and that he sold one of them, in November, 1811, to one Searh » • The defendant delayed selling on the execution, because he was instructed that a compromise was pending. The defendant admitted that he knew of the judgment and execution when he purchased the cow. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff.
   Per Curiam.

There is no evidence of an actual and specific levy on the cow in question, by the deputy sheriff, during one year after the execution came into his hands. The execution was issued in April, 1810, and the plaintiff below purchased the cow of Morton, in April, 1811, and during the year 1810, Morion owned two cows. There is no ground for an inference, that Ball purchased the cow with any fraudulent intent, or for the purpose of defeating the execution. He gave a fair price, and the question is, shall the simple fact of an execution, lying dormant in the sheriff’s hands for a year, and without evidence of •sny thing like an actual levy on the chattels, by taking an invento•y, by designation, or otherwise, bar a sale of a specific chattel by the debtor? To carry the lien so far, would be a very inconvenient check to the circulation of property. (8 Johns. Rep. 452.) Though the delay on the part of the sheriff may have been- by agreement of the parties to the execution, and without any fraudulent intent on their part, yet third persons have a right to presume the execution satisfied, or as expired, unless the knowledge of an actual seizure be brought home to the purchaser. Here is no proof that any seizure was ever made; and upon the whole, the judgment below ought to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  