Bayley v. Bates
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action on the case, for a false return. The declaration stated, that a judgment was obtained in . . February, 1$09, m favour of the plaintiff, against /?. B. on which a fi.fa.. was issued, returnable the 25th of November, 1809, and delivered to the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Ontario, on the 14th of November.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case, for a false return. The declaration stated, that a judgment was obtained in . . February, 1$09, m favour of the plaintiff, against /?. B. on which a fi.fa.. was issued, returnable the 25th of November, 1809, and delivered to the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Ontario, on the 14th of November. That the defendant had not the moneys, as he was direct-v ed, &c. but falsely, maliciously, and deceitfully re- *' turned on the fi.fa. that he could find no goods or chattels, lands or tenements of the said R. B. in his bailiwick, &c. Plea, the general issue. The…
1Per curiam
The question is, whether the defendant was protected under the inquest of office from the charge of a false return. It is found that he procured and conducted the inquest with impartiality and good faith; and it appears that the plaintiff had due notice of it, and that there was not any regular indemnity offered to the sheriff, in case he would sell the negro. If then the return of nulla bona, founded upon an inquest, will in any case be a defence in an action for a false return, notwithstanding that the property of the chattel in question did belong to the defendant in the execution, this…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Lummis v. KassonNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Remdall v. SwackhamerOregon Supreme Court · 1880
- Wadsworth & Co. v. WallikerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Spangler v. Commonwealth ex rel. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
- Allwein v. SprinkleIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.