Smith v Jackson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1867
Date01 January 1867
CourtAssizes

English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 596

Nisi Prius

Smith
and
Jackson.

[352] York Spring Assizes, co-ram Blackburn, J. smith v. jackson (Whtre there were two actions by distinct plaintiffs against the same defendant, and wnts of fi. fa. were issued in each action, and delivered to a bailiff, together with the sheriff's warrant to execute them, and the bailiff thereupon, in execution of one of the writs, seized the defendant's goods, which were insufficient ta satisfy the debt and costs in that action, it was held that the second writ of fi. fa. was not executed by the seizure under the first; and that the issuing of a writ of ca. so,, in the same action, without returning the unexecuted writ of fi. fa., was not irregular. Held, also, that, even if the ca. sa. were irregular, the sheriff could not take advantage of his own wrong by setting up the irregularity as a defence to an action against him for permitting the debtor who had been arrested thereon to escape.) This was an action against a sheriff for an escape Hayes and Field were for the plaintiff, and Overend and P. Thompson for the defendant. The plaintiff had obtained judgment in an action against a man named Eyre, who had also suffered judgment in another action brought against him by a Mr. Slatef. The same attorneys had been engaged for the plaintiffs in both actions, and in November they sent down writs of fi. fa. in each of the actions, with directions to tlje defendant to execute them , and, by arrangement between the plaintiff's attorneys and the sheriff, the execution was intrusted to a man named Stamp Stamp seized some goods belonging to Eyre under the writ of fi fa. issued in the actiom of Slater v. Eyre ; but, as the goods seized did not realize sufficient to satisfy the debt and costs in that case, writs of ca sa were also issued in both actions, without, however, making any return of the writs of fi fa previously issued. Eyre was arrested under the ca sa issued in the action of Smith v Eyre, and lodged in gaol , but seme negotiations took place between Stamp and Eyre's attorney, the result of which was that it was arranged that Eyre should be set free on paying LOs in the pound on the plaintiff's debt and the costs in full According to the usual course of practice Stamp went to the under-sherifi's office for the purpose of obtaining a liberate or order to the gaoler for the release of the prisoner, which he was to give to 4 F. & F. 153. MOORHOUSE V. LEE 597 Eyre's attorney upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT