Gardner v. Campbell

15 Johns. 401
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1818
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 15 Johns. 401 (Gardner v. Campbell) 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
Gardner v. Campbell, 15 Johns. 401 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1818).

Opinion

Spencer, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The first objection to the pleas, is, that they admit the original caption to be lawful, and that when that is the case, replevin does not lie.

In the case of Hopkins v. Hopkins, (10 Johns. Rep. 372.) this court adopted the well known and ancient principle, that when a person acts under an authority or license given by the law, and abuses it, he shall be deemed a trespasser ah initia; but the action is grounded' on a tortious taking; and The Six Carpenters' case, (8 Co. 146.) recognises a distinction between the actual and positive abuse of a thing taken originally by authority of the law, and a mere nonfeasance, such as a refusal to deliver an article distrained.

The conclusive objection to all the pleas, is, that con[403]*403ibssedly, the defendant took the plaintiffs goods, under and by virtue of an execution; and they are, in the language of this court, in Thompson v. Button, (14 Johns. Rep. 86.) in the custody of the law, and it would be repugnant to sound principles to permit them to be taken out of such custody, when the officer has found them in the possession of the defendant in the execution, and taken them out of his possession.

The pretence set up here is, that the execution was paid and satisfied. Whether it was or not, makes no difference in the principle. If the fact be true, the plaintiff is not without his redress; he cannot be allowed to set up that fact to devest the sheriffs possession; the goods were lawfully taken by the defendant, and replevin is not the appropriate remedy. If it were allowed, the execution of the writ of fieri facias might, in all cases, be delayed or eluded.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Related

Auto Brokerage Co. v. Ullrich
131 A. 901 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1926)
J. W. Dowling & Co. v. Bowden
25 Fla. 712 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1889)
Hawk v. Lepple
17 A. 351 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1889)
Henderson v. Marx
57 Ala. 169 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1876)
Drew v. Spaulding
45 N.H. 472 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1864)
Dame v. Dame
43 N.H. 37 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1861)
Russell v. Hanscomb
81 Mass. 166 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1860)
Ronge v. Dawson
9 Wis. 246 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1859)
Hinks v. Hinks
46 Me. 423 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1859)
Tyson v. Bowden
8 Fla. 61 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1858)
Ross v. Philbrick
39 Me. 29 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1854)
Winter v. Peterson
24 N.J.L. 524 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1854)
Saul v. Kruger
9 How. Pr. 569 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1854)
Hymann v. Cook
1 How. App. Cas. 419 (New York Court of Appeals, 1848)
Weed v. Hill
2 Miles 122 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1837)
Calvert v. Stewart
4 F. Cas. 1084 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1836)
Williamson v. Ringgold
30 F. Cas. 19 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1830)
Judd v. Fox & Harton
9 Cow. 259 (New York Supreme Court, 1828)
Kimball v. Adams
3 N.H. 182 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1825)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Johns. 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-campbell-nysupct-1818.