| Conn. | Jun 15, 1830
Lead Opinion
The question in this case was decided in the court below in conformity to what was understood to have been a previous decision on the circuit. I am satisfied, that the evidence ought to have been admitted. The excess was very trifling ; and the case seems peculiarly to require the application of the maxim—“De minibus non curat lex.” And even had the excess been at all important in point of amount, the entire levy ought not, on that account, to have been avoided ; as the debtor, if aggrieved, in such case, might obtain redress, by application to a court of chancery.
I would advise a new trial.
Concurrence Opinion
concurred in the result. The objection in this case, he remarked, is inter apices juris. The levies of the plaintiff’s executions, were decided to be invalid, by reason of the unintentional appropriation of estate beyond the debts and costs, of a few cents only. Without questioning the principle, that no more property can be taken on execution than the judgment debt and costs, it is the duty of the court to be astute in their endeavours to sustain a levy against an exception extremely minute and trivial. Justice and general convenience equally demand it. Now, from the computation of an able surveyor, it is apparent, that the land set off on the plaintiff’s executions, regarding the lines run and the distances, falls short of the quantity, which the officer has returned that it comprised; and that the creditor has not obtained, within a few cents, the value of his judgments. The levies, then, are valid; and a new trial must be granted.
New trial to be granted.