Work v. Hoofnagle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Th-is was a special action on the case against the defendant, as a public officer. Plea non cul. with leave to give the special matters in evidence.
Read the full summary
Th-is was a special action on the case against the defendant, as a public officer. Plea non cul. with leave to give the special matters in evidence. The declaration consisted of three counts. 1st, That on the 2d July 1785, Daniel Brodhead, jun. was an inhabitant or resident of Virginia, and indebted to the plaintiff in 154I. on two bills of exchange drawn by him and dishonoured, and had goods in Westmorland county, to the amount of 500I.; that the plaintiff issued a foreign attachment against him, tested 10th April 1785, returnable in the July term following which he delivered to Robert Orr,…
1Opinion of the Court
by the court.
And, Officers are created for the benefit of the community, not for the emolument of individuals. Every public officer ought to know his duty, and exercise it with fidelity, or he will become responsible to the party grieved. The defendant’s conduct in the instance before us has been highly culpable, and it has not been accounted for, nor can it *508possibly be explained to bis advantage, if tbe testimony merits credit. The under sheriff is told by him in July 1785, that special bail has been entered, and therefore delivers up the goods; but he takes the liberty of informing him,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Raitport v. Provident National BankDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1978
- Bensinger v. University of Pittsburgh Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Ziegler v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849