Page images


• Doe, on the demise of BLAND, 0. SMITH.

[ocr errors]

the sheriff has


T JECTMENT for the recovery of a house, &c. In an ejeet.

ment for pre which the defendant held under Bland. The mise counsel for the lessor of the plaintiff produced

the lessor of

the plaintiff from the sheriff's office a writ of fieri facias is the party in

the original against Smith, at the suit of the plaintiff Bland. action in

which the ex. It was then proved that the writ had been exe ecution issues,

he is bound not cuted, and the premises seized; after which an

only to pro. assignment from the sheriff to the plaintiff was duce the writ

of fieri facias, given in evidence. The counsel for the lessor under which of the plaintiff rested their case here.

sold, but like

wise the judg. Richardson, for the defendant, contended, that as the lessor of the plaintiff was the original party in the action in which the writ of fieri facias issued, and was the person who put the sheriff in motion, it was incumbent upon him to prove the judgment, in order to make out his legal title. Non constat, that there was any judgment. The writ might have been sued out wrongfully. There was an obvious distinction between the officer, and the party who employs him in a public duty. The officer may justify under the writ; but the plaintiff must go a step further, and prove the judgment.

Raine and Tindall, contrà. The plaintiff, in this case, is like a common purchaser under the sheriff. He derives title through him, in the same manner as any stranger would acquire a title to

a chattel, real or personal, bought under a sale made by the sheriff.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Wood, Baron.--I should think that it would be enough in this action for the plaintiff to produce the writ. But I will reserve the point.

Verdict for the lessor of the plaintiff.

Raine and Tindall for the plaintiff.

Richardson, for the defendant.

This case came before the Court of K. B. at Serjeants' Inn, during the Sittings there after Mich. Term, 1817 ;when the Court were of opi

nion, that the lessor of the plaintiff was bound to produce the judgment; and they accordingly directed a popsuit to be entered.



t the nsband.

SSUMPSIT.-The wife of the defendant The admis.

sion of the I had bought of the plaintiff certain goods, wife, who was which the defendant hawked about the country. Connetier

accustomed to All the articles had been obtained previous to the husband's bu.

siness, is suffiyear 1810.

cient to take the case out of the statute of

limitations in The defendant pleaded the general issue, and an action the statute of linitations. Many acknowledg- ang ments of the wife were offered in evidence for the purpose of taking the case out of the statute. On the part of the defendant it was objected, that the wife could only be considered as the agent of her husband; and that the admissions of the agent could only bind the principal, if made at the time when the goods were ordered or received by him. That, since the last receipt of goods was more than six years before the action was brought, the only admission which, upon the principle above stated, could be given in evidence, was likewise before that time; and, therefore, that there could be no authority in the wife to make an admission which would take the case out of the statute.


RICHARDS, C. B.-The wife was the only person accustomed to purchase goods at all. She was, therefore, the only proper person to ask for mo


ney, and to make admissions on the subject as to the sum due.

Verdict for plaintiff. Starkie, for plaintiff.


Williams and Gilby, for defendant.

See Gregory v. Parker, 1 Campb. 394.



[ocr errors]

THE prisoners were indicted on Lord Ellen. In an indict.

ment under 1 borough's act for cutting and maiming cer- Lord Ellenbo.

rough's act for tain persons, assisting a sheriff's officer, who had a

maiming a warrant directing him to arrest William Meude, on

sheriff's offimesne process out of K. B.

cer, it is incumbent on the prosecu.

tor, not only The warrant was first put in and proved. It to produce the

warrant made was directed to one Meadley, a sheriff's officer, residing at Whitby. The arrest was made at seriff to the

officer, but Stainton Dale, which was proved to be in the likewise the

writ, liberty of Pickering Lyth. And it appeared that a Mr. Hill, who was lord of the manor, and chief bailiff of the liberty, had the sole right of executing · writs within the liberty.


The writ was not produced.

Upon this it was objected-1. That the prosecutors were bound to produce the writ. The sheriff was only a ministerial officer of the court above, and the bailiff was merely his servant. The warrant could not put the bailiff in any better situation than the sheriff himself would be placed in, if he had executed the process; and it is perfectly clear that his own warrant could confer no additional authority upon him; and that, if in such case an action were brought against him for false imprisonment, he would be obliged to set out the writ in his plea of justification. 2. That

« PreviousContinue »