« PreviousContinue »
Doe, on the demise of BLAND, 0. SMITH.
JECTMENT for the recovery of a house, &c.
In an eject
ment for prewhich the defendant held under Bland. The
mises, where counsel for the lessor of the plaintiff produced the plaintiff from the sheriff's office a writ of fieri facias is the party in against Smith, at the suit of the plaintiff Bland. action in It was then proved that the writ had been exe- ecution issues, cuted, and the premises seized ; after which an only to pro. assignment from the sheriff to the plaintiff was duce the writ given in evidence. The counsel for the lessor under which
the sheriff has of the plaintiff rested their case here.
sold, but like wise the judg.
which the ex
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.
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 plaintift.
Richardson, for the defendant.
This case came before the nion, that the lessor of the Court of K. B. at Serjeants' plaintiff was bound to produce Inn, during the Sittings there the judgment; and they acafter Mich. Term, 1817; cordingly directed a nopsuit when the Court were of opi- to be entered.
ANDERSON V. SANDERSON.
The admis. sion of the
SSUMPSIT.-The wife of the defendant
had bought of the plaintiff certain goods, wife, tho was which the defendant hawked about the country. condnet her All the articles had been obtained previous to the husband's bus
cient to take the case out of the statute of limitations in
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and an action the statute of limitations.
Many acknowledg- against the 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, i Campb. 394.
Rex v. WILLIAM MEade and ROBERT MEADE.
THE prisoners were indicted on Lord Ellen- In an indicto
borough's act for cutting and maiming cer- Lord Ellenbotain persons, assisting a sheriff's officer, who had a cutting and
maiming a warrant directing him to arrest William Meade, on their mesne 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 was directed to one Meadley, a sheriff's officer, out by the residing at Whitby. The arrest was made at officer, but Stainton Dale, which was proved to be in the likewise the 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