I will now proceed to examine into the merits of the questions raised before me. The deputy sheriff in his affidavit stated that the property in question was seized on the 29th September, 1910. That happened to be the day of the sale. There must have been some mistake on the part of the deputy, unless he imagined that there was no seizure until the date of the sale. I am of opinion that in the case of lands no corporal seizure is necessary, and if it were necessary, the seizure or what was equivalent thereto, in this case, was made away in June, when the advertisements were posted and published—whichever may have happened first: Doe d. Eazen v. Hazen, 3 A.C. (N.B.) 87. The objection in this respect is not well-founded.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.