Colvard v. Oliver

7 Wend. 497
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 23, 1832
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 7 Wend. 497 (Colvard v. Oliver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Colvard v. Oliver, 7 Wend. 497 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1832).

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

It is evident that Sager and Chesebrough were the real parties in the replevin suits. The sheriff had levied on the property of Clark, and it was his duty to sell it, and render the avails to the plaintiffs in the execution ; but the goods were taken from him by other persons. Whether it was his duty to have brought a replevin himself, without-an indemnity, need not be here decided, for the parties in interest undertook themselves to do it with the deputy’s consent. In general, where there is a mere claim of property by a third person, it is proper for the sheriff to call a jury of inquiry; here the suits were brought, it seems, by the advice of Sager and Chesebrough, and upon a claim of property, an inquiry was instituted by the coroner, at which Sager settled, or agreed to settle the suit with Stiles, and about this time a bond of indemnity was executed by Sager and Chesebrough. There can be no reasonable doubt, therefore, that they assumed the management of the causes, and they should be at their risk. Had an application been made by the defendants in the suit that Sager and Chesebrough pay the costs, it would be but ordinary practice to grant it. The same practice has been adopted where the application comes from the nominal plaintiff. The principle is the same; it is this: that the party in interest shall he treated as the real party in the cause, and shall not be screened from responsibility in a summary way, by using the name of another as party to the record. These suits were necessarily brought in the name of the sheriff for the benefit of Sager and Chesebrough, and they must pay the amount for which the sheriff was made liable.

Motion granted with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pendleton v. Johnson
18 N.Y.S. 211 (Superior Court of New York, 1891)
Preston v. Town of Koshkonong
12 N.W. 440 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)
Columbian Insurance v. Stevens
4 Abb. Pr. 122 (New York Court of Appeals, 1868)
Columbian Insurance Co. v. . Stevens
37 N.Y. 536 (New York Court of Appeals, 1868)
Hallett v. Hastie
35 Ala. 164 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)
Fisher v. Hall
9 How. Pr. 259 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)
Scott v. John
15 Ala. 566 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1849)
M'Hench v. M'Hench
7 Hill & Den. 204 (New York Supreme Court, 1845)
Whitney v. Cooper
1 Hill & Den. 629 (New York Supreme Court, 1841)
Livingston v. Clements
1 Hill & Den. 648 (New York Supreme Court, 1841)
Miller v. Adsit
18 Wend. 353 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Wend. 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colvard-v-oliver-nysupct-1832.