Bowie v. Brahe
This text of 2 Abb. Pr. 161 (Bowie v. Brahe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The court will not direct the sheriff in what manner he shall execute process. This is regarded, as an application made with a view to obtain the advice of the court. The court should not advise the sheriff, by ordering him to do particular acts, as being essential and proper in the rightful performance of his duty.
The sheriff must act, under the advice of his counsel, on his own responsibility, if he should refuse to return the writ, the court would compel him to do it. When he has made a return, if the plaintiff deems it false, he must seek his remedy by action or otherwise, as he may be advised.
The motion must be denied.
Compare Curtis a. Leavitt, 1 Ante 274, in which it was held that a special receiver appointed in the course of an action to take custody of a fund in suit, is an officer of the court, and as such is entitled to the instructions of the court, when the question is what is his duty under the orders made in the cause.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Abb. Pr. 161, 11 Duer 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowie-v-brahe-nysuperctnyc-1855.