Rawson v. Dole

2 Johns. 454
New York Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1807·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Spencer, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The common law remedy to proceed against a sheriff for an escape, by action on the case, has been holden not to be taken away by the statute, enabling the party, in whose favour an execution issues, against the body of his debtor, upon his escape to maintain an action for the debt and damages for which he was committed.

If an action on the case had been brought, it might have been inquired, what was lost by the escape, and the jury might have given such damages as they supposed the party had sustained; but in the action of debt, every inquiry of that kind is improper, for the statute has fixed the extent of the sheriff’s liability, that is, for the original debt and damages recovered. As the defendant could go into no circumstances of mitigation, the plaintiff must be confined to the precise amount of the original judgment, with costs; and this is conformable to the case of Bonafous v. Walker.

Footnotes

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

Rawson v. Dole, 2 Johns. 454 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).

2 Johns. 454 (Rawson v. Dole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dininny v. Fay
38 Barb. 18 (New York Supreme Court, 1862)
Barnes v. Willett
11 Abb. Pr. 225 (New York Supreme Court, 1860)
Metcalf v. Stryker
10 Abb. Pr. 12 (New York Supreme Court, 1859)
Currie v. . Worthy
48 N.C. 315 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1856)
Osgood v. Blake
21 N.H. 550 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1850)
Fullerton v. Harris
8 Me. 393 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1832)
Littlefield v. Brown
1 Wend. 398 (New York Supreme Court, 1828)
Blanding v. Rogers
4 S.C.L. 394 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1810)
Smith v. Hart
3 S.C.L. 146 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1802)