
    Hartshorn v. Halsey.
    In an action by an officer against a receipts-man for property taken on execution, it is not necessary to aver, that the judgment is unsatisfied.
    "Weit oe Eeeoe, to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action, brought by Hartshorn against Halsey; declaring that at a certain time, he had a certain execution as an officer, to levy and collect; that he levied it upon a home, the property of the debtor, and posted it as the law directs; that upon the request of the defendant, he delivered said horse to him to keep, in consideration whereof, the defendant agreed and promised to redeliver said horse to the plaintiff on the day of etc. as by the defendant’s receipt ready to be produced in court appeal’s; and that the defendant disregarding his promise, hath never redelivered said horse, etc.
   To this declaration the defendant demurred; because there is no averment, that said judgment and execution remain in force, unreversed and unpaid. The County Court judged said declaration to be insufficient; which judgment was reversed by the Superior Court upon the writ of error; because those averments are unnecessary in the declaration, in an action brought by an officer against the receiver of property taken ‘by execution.  