
    GEORGE HICKMAN vs. JOHN HICKMAN.
    A mere stay of execution process, after levy, will not deprive it of its legal priority
    Rule to show cause why the plaintiff should not take out of cour a sum of money brought in by the sheriff as levied from the defend ant’s property.
    The money was levied by a sale of defendant’s property on plain tiff’s execution, which was issued on the 8th of May, 1841. Then was an execution issued at the suit of Thomas Robinson against thi defendant, on the 17th of July, 1839, which was levied on the pro perty now sold and then stayed by order of the plaintiff and alia execution issued regularly to each term, and stayed in the same way
    
      Cullen, in support of the rule,
    objected to the application of an part of the money to Robinson’s execution, on the ground that hil staying the same was a fraud in law, and lost to him the priority lien; and 2d. That the delay occasioned expense in the keeping the property levied on, and this did an injury to the subsequent exec tion creditors. (1 Wils. 44, 4 East Rep. 522-3; 17 Johns. Rep. 27tj .15 ib. 42S; 11 ib. 109; 7 Coieen’s Rep. 560; 4 Mass. Rep. 402; 1 Johns. Rep. 207.)
    
      Ridgely, contra,
    considered the point as settled in Delaware, b the case of Houston vs. Sutton, (3 Han-. Rep. 37.) There were n| circumstances of actual fraud or injury in the case. The expen; of keeping the property levied on, being certain slaves, arose entire, from the act of George Hickman, the plaintiff in the present rule.
   Rule discharged, the comí, deciding in accordance with the ca of Janvier vs. Sutton, that the senior execution creditor had not lost the preference of his levy by the mere stay of proceedings.

Cullen, for the rule.

Ridgely, contra.  