Schneider v. Sears
Oregon Supreme Court
Multnomah County. Defendant appeals. The relation of a sheriff to personal property taken upon process of attachment or execution is that of bailee, and he is bound to ordinary diligence in taking care of it. The necessary expenses of taking care of the property is a charge upon the same, and he is entitled to deduct it.
Read the full summary
Multnomah County. Defendant appeals. The relation of a sheriff to personal property taken upon process of attachment or execution is that of bailee, and he is bound to ordinary diligence in taking care of it. The necessary expenses of taking care of the property is a charge upon the same, and he is entitled to deduct it. (Story on Bailments, 9th ed., secs. 130, 131; Twombly v. Hunewell, 2 Me. 225; Tyler v. Ulmer, 12 Mass. 168; Murfree on Sheriffs, sec. 1077.) Since the sheriff is bound to only ordinary care of the property, if the plaintiff in the action desires extraordinary care taken of…
1Opinion of the CourtThayer, J.
The respondent brought an action against the appellant to recover money collected by the latter as sheriff of Multnomah County, upon execution issued upon a judgment in favor of respondent against Bach-man Brothers, and which 'the appellant had failed to pay over. The judgment against Bachman Brothers amounted to $2,016.55. The sheriff realized, by the sale of personal property upon the execution, $2,034.18, and only paid’over $1,349.21. The balance he retained for fees and charges, and $157.36 thereof to satisfy a judgment recovered by Stearns Brothers against said Bach-*72man Brothers in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cutter v. HoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
3Cited by9 opinions
- Murphy v. BjelikOregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Mitchell & Lewis Co. v. DowningOregon Supreme Court · 1893
- Spores v. MaudeOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- Dickson v. BackOregon Supreme Court · 1897
- Price v. Boot ShopOregon Supreme Court · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.