Futcher v Hinder
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 673
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 28; 7 W. R. 57.
[757] futcher v hinder. Nov. 20, 1858.-In February 1857, the defendant, a sheriff's officer, received from the under-sheriff a warrant to execute a, writ of ca. sa. issued on a judgment recovered against A. the now plaintiff, by B. On the 20th April, B 's attorney wrote to the defendant to suspend the execution for fourteen days. On the 2nd May, B.'s attorney wrote to the defendant as follows ò -"This action having been arranged, we have given, Mr G " (A's attorney), " who informs us he has paid your charges, notice of withdrawal of ca sa " On the same day B.'s attorney wrote to A.'s attorney acknowledging the receipt of mosey in settlement of the action. No notice of the withdrawal of the ca sa. was sent to the sheriff or under-sheriff. On the 7th November, the under-sheriff wrote to the defendant to execute the ca. sa, and he accordingly arrested and imprisoned A. under that writ. In an action of trespass by A. against the defendant: Held, first, that the notice to the defendant by the letter of the 2nd of May was notice to the sheriff. Secondly, that the letter was in terms a sufficient notice thrtt the action was settled and the ca. sa. withdrawn [S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 28; 7 W. R. 57.] Trespass for assaulting and imprisoning the plaintiff in a common gaol. Pleas. First. Not guilty. Secondly. That before the time when, &c, R. Burleigh, W. Snelgar and Q. Burleigh sued and prosecuted out of the Court of Exchequer a writ of ca. sa. against the plaintiff, directed to the sheriff of Wilts, by which writ our Lady the Queen commanded the said sheriff that he should omit not, &c, but take the plaintiff, &c, to satisfy the said R. Burleigh, W Snelgar and G. Burleigh 741 Is. 4d which they had lately in the said Court recovered against the plaintiff, &c.: which said writ was afterwards and before the return thereof, and before the said time when, &c , delivered to and was in the hands of the said sheriff to be executed in due form of law. Whereupon the said sheriff afterwards arid before the return thereof, and before the said time when, &c., for having execution thereof, made his warrant in writing sealed with the seal of his office, &c., and then directed the same to the keeper of the gaol of the said county, and also to one other Samuel Hinder and the defendant and Job Doe (the defendaot then and until and at and after the said time when, &c , being a bailiff of the said sheriff), and by the said warrant commanded them and eveiy of them jointly and severally that they or one of them should take the plaintiff, if he should be found within the said sheriff's bailiwick, &c (setting out the warrant [758] which was in the same terms as the writ). The plea then stated (in the usual form) the delivery of tie warrant to the defendant, as and then being such bailiff as aforesaid, to be executed, Ex. Div. xih.-22 674 FUTCHER V. HINDER 3H&N 759. and that by virtue of the warrant he arrested the plaintiff and imprisoned him in the common gaol: which were the trespasses complained of. Replication. That, after the delivery of the writ of ca sa. to the sheriff, and after the delivery of the warrant to the defendant, and before any execution thereof, the plaintiff paid and satisfied the judgment debt in the writ and warrant mentioned, and satisfied and discharged the claims of the said E Burleigh, \V Snelgar and G. Burleigh thereunder and in respect of which the writ was issued. whereupon the said B. Burleigh, W. Snelgar and G. Buileigh, before the execution of the said writ or warrant, and before the committing of the trespasses, &c., gave notice to the said sheriff and to the defendant, as and being such officer of the said sheriff as in that plea mentioned, of the said payment, satisfaction and discharge; and then instructed, authorised and required the said sheriff and the defendant, as and being such officer, not to execute the said writ or warrant, and not to levy against the body of the plaintiff upon or in respect of the said judgment or otherwise howsoever, and then foibad the said sheriff and the defendant respectively to execute the said writ or warrant. wherefore the defendant, of his own wrong, &c., committed the trespasses, &c. The defendant joined issue on the replication. At the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial