Bushnell v. Eaton
Ohio Supreme Court
Bushnell, sheriff, had an execution (a fi. fa.) against Eaton from the Common Pleas. During the life of the execution, the defendant paid to the plaintiff the amount of his judgment, and paid the-costs, including poundage, upon the money paid over to the plaintiff to the sheriff, and the execution was satisfied.
Read the full summary
Bushnell, sheriff, had an execution (a fi. fa.) against Eaton from the Common Pleas. During the life of the execution, the defendant paid to the plaintiff the amount of his judgment, and paid the-costs, including poundage, upon the money paid over to the plaintiff to the sheriff, and the execution was satisfied. Eaton after-wards moved the Court of Common Pleas to amerce Bushnell for improperly taxing the poundage on the execution, when the money did not come into his hands, which the court ordered. The proceedings are now brought here by certiorari, to reverse the order of amercement.
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
By the statute (29 O. L. 109, 10) sheriffs are made-liable to amercements at the instance of the defendant in execution, for refusing to sell property levied upon; for neglect to appraise land and return a copy to the clerk; for neglect to return the execution, or an inventory of the goods, ¿so., unless he has made the money in full; or neglect to pay over on demand any surplus-money made on sale of defendant’s property, more than sufficient, to satisfy the execution. No amercement is provided for the oppressive acts of the sheriff, other than those enumerated — for all others, the party…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Phipps v. KellyOregon Supreme Court · 1885
- Mills v. LearnOregon Supreme Court · 1867