First v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

First v. Miller

7 Ky. 311, 4 Bibb 311, 1816 Ky. LEXIS 28

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedApril 18, 1816

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 7 Ky. 311 (First v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First v. Miller, 7 Ky. 311, 4 Bibb 311, 1816 Ky. LEXIS 28 (Ky. Ct. App. 1816).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION of the Court, by

Ch. J. Boyee.

Oh a motion against the defendant as deputy sheriff, for money collected by him on a, fieri facias, the plaintiff offered to prove that the money had not been paid to his attorney, but the court below rejected the evidence as inadmissible, to which the plaintiff excepted, and a judgment being given against him he has brought the case to this court by writ of error.

It docs not appeal- that any evidence had been adduced by the defendant to prove that the money had been paid to the plaintiff’s attorney ; and if there were no such evidence adduced, it is plain that the testimony offered by the plaintiff was immaterial. It is true that the plaintiff had previously read the return of the sheriff, which states that he had made the money and paid it to the plaintiff’s attorney. But most unquestionably the sheriff’s return was no evidence of his having paid the money. Such g return is not commanded to be made by the writ, nor is it authorised by law. The sheriff may indeed excuse himself by showing that he has paid the amount collected to the plaintiff or his attorney, but he must prove the fact by other evidence than his return. To put the plaintiff upon the proof that he had not received the money, because the sheriff had returned that he had, would be preposterous in itself and attended witli the most mischievous consequences.

If then the court below considered the return of the sheriff as no evidence of the payment of the money, and we cannot presume otherwise unless it had been so stated in the bill of exceptions, they might with propriety refuse to listen to the evidence offered by the plaintiff as being immaterial, nor can their having done so be considered by this court as any cause for reversing their judgment.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

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

OPINION of the Court, by

Ch. J. Boyee.

Oh a motion against the defendant as deputy sheriff, for money collected by him on a, fieri facias, the plaintiff offered to prove that the money had not been paid to his attorney, but the court below rejected the evidence as inadmissible, to which the plaintiff excepted, and a judgment being given against him he has brought the case to this court by writ of error.

It docs not appeal- that any evidence had been adduced by the defendant to prove that the money had been paid to the plaintiff’s attorney ; and if there were no such evidence adduced, it is plain that the testimony offered by the plaintiff was immaterial. It is true that the plaintiff had previously read the return of the sheriff, which states that he had made the money and paid it to the plaintiff’s attorney. But most unquestionably the sheriff’s return was no evidence of his having paid the money. Such g return is not commanded to be made by the writ, nor is it authorised by law. The sheriff may indeed excuse himself by showing that he has paid the amount collected to the plaintiff or his attorney, but he must prove the fact by other evidence than his return. To put the plaintiff upon the proof that he had not received the money, because the sheriff had returned that he had, would be preposterous in itself and attended witli the most mischievous consequences.

If then the court below considered the return of the sheriff as no evidence of the payment of the money, and we cannot presume otherwise unless it had been so stated in the bill of exceptions, they might with propriety refuse to listen to the evidence offered by the plaintiff as being immaterial, nor can their having done so be considered by this court as any cause for reversing their judgment.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ky. 311, 4 Bibb 311, 1816 Ky. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-v-miller-kyctapp-1816.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack