Morgan v. Chester
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Hartford, for the default of Titus L. Bissell, one of his deputies, in relation to an execution in favour of the plaintiff against Serrel Bissell.
Read the full summary
This was an action against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Hartford, for the default of Titus L. Bissell, one of his deputies, in relation to an execution in favour of the plaintiff against Serrel Bissell. The defendant pleaded in bar “That the plaintiff commenced his action against the said Titus L. Bissell, returnable to the county court of New-London county, in December, 1818, for the same matter, cause and thing as is contained in this action, and charging him with the same default in relation to the collection of the said execution, and comprising the whole grievance stated in…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
It is unquestionably clear, that the plaintiff might have instituted a suit, either against the sheriff, or his deputy, for the default complained of; and that nothing short of satisfaction made by one, would annihilate the remedy against the other. Although the causes of action are not precisely identical; yet the sheriff is subjected equally with his deputy to a responsibility for his official neglect or misconduct. The relation between them, in point of effect, produces the same consequences, as that between joint and several promisers, or joint trespassers: the judgment…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Sheldon v. KibbeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1819
3Cited by11 opinions
- Holcomb v. CornishSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Chapin v. BabcockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- Reichman v. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
- Roath v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
- State ex rel. Bashe v. BoyceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.