Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 Ark. 612

Frizzell v. Duffer

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 31, 1894

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1894-03-31

Edgar E. Bryant, Judge. ■ Mattie Duffer brought suit in trespass in the circuit court against Jas. G. Frizzell, constable, and B. B. Meek, his deputy. The complaint, as originally filed, contained the following (after stating the ownership and description of the premises): “That, on the 6th day of June, 1890, defendant Jas.

Relies on Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v. Gardner · Lucas v. Locke · Cotton v. Marsh

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-03-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 1969

13 state decisions

4018941900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Battue, J.

¶11. Amendment of pleading-. The circuit court did not err in permitting the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Mansfield’s Digest, sec. 5080.

¶22. Inability of constable for deputy’s 3. Damages The constable was responsible for the acts, defaults, torts and other misconduct done or committed by his deputy colore officii. Lucas v. Locke, 11 W. Va. 81 ; Knowlton v. Bartlett, 1 Pick. 273 ; Mosby v. Mosby, 9 Gratt. 584 ; Cotton v. Marsh, 3 Wis. 221 ; Crocker on Sheriffs (3 ed.), sec. 869. Por all civil purposes the acts of the deputy were the acts of the constable. Mosby v. Mosby, 9 Grattan, 602. The taking of possession and holding of the house of the plaintiff, under the agreement of the parties to the attachment, were, in law, the acts of the constable. Holding as he did, it was his duty to surrender the house to the plaintiff when the one ■day after the notice to vacate had expired. The holding of the house after that time was a trespass (Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v. Gardner, 99 Ill. 151), and the act of the constable ; and he was liable for damages in an amount equal to the fair rental value of the premises during the time of the unlawful detention, no other wrong having been committed.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/58/ark/612 · .json · Public domain