Egery & Hinckley v. Buchanan
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County. On the 4th day of August, 1852, the respondents commenced an action by attachment, in the District Court of the Fourth District, against T. A. Thomas and others, and sent their writ of attachment to the County of El Dorado.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County. On the 4th day of August, 1852, the respondents commenced an action by attachment, in the District Court of the Fourth District, against T. A. Thomas and others, and sent their writ of attachment to the County of El Dorado. On the 10th day of August, 1852, the writ of attachment was leviel upon a quartz mill and machinery of the said Thomas and others, by Buchanan, one of the appellants, who was then the Sheriff of said County. On the 18th day of January, 1853, judgment was recovered by the respondents…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, J.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
The plaintiffs have mistaken their remedy ; they are concluded by the return of the sheriff, and their action must be for a false return. A sheriff’s return is not traversable, and a Court will not permit it, collaterally, to be attacked, even if the officer is shown to have been guilty of fraud and collusion. Sewell on Sheriffs, 387. Watoon on Sheriffs, 72.
It is urged, that the statute of this State, giving extraordinary damages against the sheriff for failing to pay over money collected on execution, has affected or altered the rule at common law. There is no reason…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Stewart v. StewartWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1885
- Smoot v. JuddSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Bowyer v. KnappWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- Rowe's Adm'r v. Habdy's Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1899
- Ritter v. ScannellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.