CARLISLE v. CUNNINGHAM, 1 U.S. 81 (1784)
U.S. Supreme Court
CARLISLE v. CUNNINGHAM, 1 U.S. 81 (1784)1 U.S. 81 (Dall.)
Carlisle et ux.
v.
Cunningham
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
June Term, 1784
Levy obtained a rule to show cause, why a house which had been delivered to the plaintiffs on a liberari facias, that issued in this cause, should not now be surrendered to the vendee of the defendant, upon his bringing into court, the principal, interest, and costs.
On the 9th of August, Lewis and Sergeant showed cause, and the rule was discharged; THE COURT being unwilling to go into the matter in a summary mode, upon mere motion, and expressing their dislike of the ampliare jurisdictionem. The principal question was, therefore, left undetermined.*
Footnotes[Footnote *] This motion was made when house rent was rising very rapidly, and the defendant's house, in the present instance, was extended at a very moderate valuation: the residue of the term was, therefore, a great object to both parties. I have not heard, however, of any other attempt being made by the defendant; but, I think, the Court recommended the Venire Facias ad computandum, which issues in England, where tenant by Elegit holds over, after being satisfied for debt and costs.[ Carlisle v. Cunningham
Footnote 1 U.S. 81 (1784) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
CARLISLE v. CUNNINGHAM, 1 U.S. 81 (1784) 1 U.S. 81 (Dall.) Carlisle et ux.v.
Cunningham Common Pleas of Philadelphia County June Term, 1784 Levy obtained a rule to show cause, why a house which had been delivered to the plaintiffs on a liberari facias, that issued in this cause, should not now be surrendered to the vendee of the defendant, upon his bringing into court, the principal, interest, and costs. On the 9th of August, Lewis and Sergeant showed cause, and the rule was discharged; THE COURT being unwilling to go into the matter in a summary mode, upon mere motion, and expressing their dislike of the ampliare jurisdictionem. The principal question was, therefore, left undetermined.* Footnotes [Footnote *] This motion was made when house rent was rising very rapidly, and the defendant's house, in the present instance, was extended at a very moderate valuation: the residue of the term was, therefore, a great object to both parties. I have not heard, however, of any other attempt being made by the defendant; but, I think, the Court recommended the Venire Facias ad computandum, which issues in England, where tenant by Elegit holds over, after being satisfied for debt and costs.[ Carlisle v. Cunningham Footnote 1 U.S. 81 (1784) ]
