Townsend v. Phillips
This text of 10 Johns. 98 (Townsend v. Phillips) 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.
Opinion
The inquisition taken by the constable was not of the plaintiff" below, 1 justification to him, in an action of trespass, for taking the goods It could only go in mitigation of damages. The authorities referred to in the case of Bayley v. Bates, (8 Johns. Rep. 185.) generally support this point, and make a distinction between an action against the sheriff for taking goods not belonging to the defendant in the execution, and an action against him, by the party in the execution, for returning nulla bona, upon the strength of such an inquisition. It may, in many cases, justify him upon a charge for a false return, for omitting to act; but not in the other case, for actually seizing goods, not belonging to the party against whom he was" to proceed.
Assuming, therefore, that a constable may, upon an execution, summon a jury, and take an inquisition, (on which point the court give no opinion,) yet, in this case, and in this suit, it did not amount to a justification.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 Johns. 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townsend-v-phillips-nysupct-1813.