
    GENERAL COURT, (E. S.)
    SEPT. TERM, 1803.
    Williamson use of Wallis vs. Perkins.
    Land taken under a fieri facias must be specifically described, otherwise the seizure is void
    Where the shi-riff’s return to a tmñamhitiyai Sif emwí bywayof1assign' ment from the pianvifftoathud ’’f “Sf knmviedgment^r X\utCff ñ-áX defendant thro’ such third person; Ifm™, ?£« SfoiPsuch third person, and return thereto were gutuhal
    
    MotioN, and rule on the plaintiff to show cause why the writ of venditioni exponas, issued in this case, should not be set aside. \
    ft áppeared that a fieri facias issued, returnable to September term 1800, and was returned by the sheriff “laid as per • schedule, and on hand for want of buyers.” The schedule referred to is as follows: “A schedule of the property of Ebcnc&er Perkins, taken with a f. fa. at the suit of David Williamson, and appraised by us, the subscribers, we being first qualified, this SOth day of August 1800. * -.ni»-“To dwelling house, griss-mul, saw-mill and fulling-mill, and all other buildings belonging thereunto, with one hundred acres of land joining the said property.” r-nt . * , The schedule was not signed by any persons as . ' . . . praisers, or by the sheriff. A writ oí; venditioni ex-
      
      ponas then issued, returnable to September ternáf is01? and was returned by the sheriff, “countermand-rd hj plaintiff.” On the back- of the last mentioned writ was the following assignment: “Chester Tow n,1st Sept. 18Ó1.- For and in consideration of the sum of twelve’ hundred and sevenfy4ht4ee dollars,- and ninety-three cents, being the balance due me upon the within venditioni exponas, and paid me by Mr. ¡Samuel Wallis, I hereby transfer and make over all my right, claim and interest, to the withiii judgment, to the said Samuel Wallis, and his assigns. Witness xúy hand.
    2). Williamson.
    
    Test Ebeilezer Perkins”
    
    The last, mentioned writ was re'newed to this term, (September Í803,) and endorsed for the use of Samuel Wallis, and the- sheriff returned the same endorsed, «■I do hereby certify, that on the 8th day of August 1808, I did seif at. public sale ail the within mentioned property, agreeably to the within writ,'to Samuel Wallis of Chester Town, for the sum of $500, he being the highest bidder^
    So answers B. Eatckison, late sheriff of Kent county.”
    The defendant's attornres Sled the following reasons for setting aside the venditioni exponas.
    
    1st. Because the return upon the Ji. fa. is erroneous, inasmuch as there appears a schedule, importing to be a schedule of property taken upon appraisement, whereas there is no appraisement.
    2d. Because the same’ schedule is not signed by the sheriff, but by a sub-sheriff.
    3d. Because upon a venditioni exponas which issu-. ed upon the Ji. fa. the same was countermanded by the plaintiff.
    4th. Because the first venditioni exponas was issued returnable to September 1801, whereas the same ought to have been returnable to April 1801,
    5th. Because the second venditioni exponas ivas issued to this present term.
    
      
      Spencer and James Scott, for tbe defendant,
    urged that the fieri facias was defective in its return, be. cause there had been no appraisement of the property seised under it. That the sheriff, after he has laid a fi.fa. and the sale is countermanded by the plaintiff, cannot afterwards retain possession of the goods. That it was like the discharge by a plaintiff of a defendant, taken on a ca. sa. and the same reasoning applied to prevent a second venditioni exponas from being issued, where the first has been countermanded by the plaintiff, and the defendant was discharged by the seizure of Jus goods ad valorem debite, and the sheriff was discharged by the countermand of the venditioni exponas, and no sale could be afterwards made under it.
    
      Hammond against the motion, contended, that the countermand released nothing but the immediate sale, ami Was not like a discharge of a defendant taken'on a ca. sa. That no appraisement of the property was necessary on nfi.fa. The idea is derived from executions in England by extent and elegit, and the lumber act in this state; He was prepared to prove there was no fraud in laying Üxcji.fa. or selling under the venditioni exponas. The property was very much incumbered, and to set aside tills venditioni ex-ponas would be to take away that very property, the seizure of which, counsel bave contended, discharged the defendant from the debt, and assimilated it to p. judgment discharged by a sheriff’s return of made on aJi.fai
    
    
      Spencer and Scott, in reply, admitted that an ap-praisement of the property was not necessary, but they contended that the return on thcfi.Ja. was erroneous, because the land taken %vas .not described by metes and bounds, or identified in any other way. That if an ejectment was brought for the land thus described, no location thereof could be made, nor could possession be delivered. The part seised and sold is wholly uncertain.
   The Court.

The return on the fieri facias is defective for want of a specification of the property; and the endorsement, by way of assignment, of the judgment from Williamson to Wallis, is an acknowledgment of satisfaction by the plaintiff from the defendant,' through Wallis, in express terms, and appears as part of the return itself; and this idea is confirmed by the sheriff’s return on the venditioni expo-* nis, “countermanded by plaintiff.”

YeNDITIONI EXPONAS AND RETURN QUASHED.  