Alford v. Samuel

Decided January 15, 1845

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1845-01-15

<p>1. Where the plaintiff, in a summary proceeding for the failure to pay over money collected by a sheriff, on a fieri facias, recovers a verdict and judgment for the amount of the damages given by statute, as a consequence of the sheriff’s default, and no more, the defendant cannot object on error, that the verdict should have been for the amount of thefi.fa. also.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1984

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1845-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

COLLIER, C. J.

¶1This was a proceeding by motion against the sheriff of St. Clair, for the failure to pay over money collected by him on s, fieri facias, at the suit of the defendant in error, against Boyt, Houston and Gilbert. The notice, and the judgment which recites and adopts it, are very special in their recitals, &c. But it is objected that the verdict and judgment thereon, cannot be supported, because, although all the allegations of the notice are affiimed to be true, the verdict is only for the amount of the damages given by statute as a consequence of the sheriff’s default.

¶2This objection questions the Correctness of the judgment, because it shows, that the plaintiff below was entitled to recover not only damages, but the amount of the execution also. This error is beneficial to the sheriff, and consequently not available for him. See, also, Moore v. Coolidge, 1 Porter’s Rep. 280.

¶3The judgment is consequently affirmed.