Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 Ala. 593

Rice v. Watts

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1882

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1882-12-15

Tried before Hon. James E. Cobb. This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis, brought by N. Watts against D. S. Hice, Alex. Wilson and J. W. McDade, and was commenced on 21st December, 1881. The cause was tried on issue joined “on the plea of not guilty, and justification under legal process,” the trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1886

1 state decisions

Relies on Griffin v. Appleby

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SOMERVILLE, J.

¶1This suit is one in trespass, brought against certain creditors of the plaintiff, for wrongfully taking *594personal property levied on by a constable under a writ of attachment issued by one Nettles, who was a notary public and ex officio justicie of the peace. The constable, who served the process, is also sued as a trespasser and co-defendant.

¶2The attachment papers, under authority of which the levy was made, were excluded from evidence by the court, on the assumed ground, that a notary public, who is appointed by the Governor, having authority to exercise the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, possessed no power to issue such extraordinary process. The question was decided to the contrary in Griffin v. Appleby, 69 Ala. 409. It was there held that such an officer, within the precinct or ward for which he is appointed, may exercise the same jurisdiction, and to this end employ the same process as justices of the peace. In Vann & Waugh v. Adams, Thorne & Co., ante p. 475, we held that notaries public had no authority to issue writs of attachments returnable to a cit/y or a circuit court — this being a special statutory power conferred on justices of the peace as such, and not appertaining or being appurtenant to their ,ordinary jurisdiction.

¶3The court erred in excluding the evidence, for which the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

/71/ala/593 · .json · Public domain