Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Ga. 613

McDougald v. Dougherty

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 15, 1853

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1853-01-15

<p>[1.] The levy of an execution against A, upon property in the possession of B, is a trespass; and the plaintiff in execuiion, the attorney for the plaintiff in execution who orders the levy, and the officer who makes it, are all liable as trespassers, unless they justify by showing that the property belonged to the defendant in execution, and was liable to the execution.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 1996

15 state decisions

50185318601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court.

Nnbet, J.

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3[1.] The proof was, that an exection in favor of Edward T. Taylor vs. M. Torrance, administrator of J. C. Watson, deceased, was levied by direction of Mr. Dougherty, attorney for the plaintiff, upon lands in the actual possession of the plaintiff below, D. McDougald. ■

¶4I see no room to 'doubt that Mr. Dougherty is liable as a trespasser. This levy was the misapplication of a legal procesa, It \vas a levy upon fcho lands of A, of a Jicra *615against B. The entry upon the lands to make the levy, was illegal, and an illegal entry isa trespass. In trespass, all are principals. The possession of the plaintiff was sufficient to authorize him to sue. The Sheriff who made the levy, the attorney who ordered it, and the plaintiff’ in the execution, are all 'trespassers. It was incumbent on the defendant to justify, by showing that the land belonged to the defendant in execution, and was liable. As the case stood, the plaintiff' Was entitled to a verdict — for what amount, is not for us to say. 1 Chitty's Plead. 185-6. Sanderson vs. Baker et at. 3 Wils. 309. T. C. 2. Black. R. 832. Wale vs. Hill, 1 Bulst. 149. 3 Wils. 368. Co. Lit. 57. (a.) Inst. 183. 1 Salk. 409. Bro. Trespass, pl. 148, 232, 307. 6 T. R. 234. 8 East. 328. 34 Eng. C. Law. R. 376, 415. 41 Ibid, 196, 330. 42 Ibid, 237, 404. 35 Ibid, 433. 46 Ibid, 827.

¶5The Court gave no opinion on the facts. What he did was to pronounce what he considered the law arising on the facts prove n.

¶6Let the judgment be reversed.

/12/ga/613 · .json · Public domain