State v. . Tatom
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The defendants were indicted for a forcible trespass, in seizing and taking from the actual possession of one Lucian H. Gilmore, he being present and forbidding the same, two-mules, the property of the said Gilmore.
Read the full summary
The defendants were indicted for a forcible trespass, in seizing and taking from the actual possession of one Lucian H. Gilmore, he being present and forbidding the same, two-mules, the property of the said Gilmore. Upon the trial at the Fall Term, 1872, of Bladen Superior Court, before his Honor, Russell, J., the jury found a special verdict as follows: That Sikes had in his hands, as Sheriff of Bladen county, an execution against W. T. Gilmore in favor of one Mrs. Purdie ; that the defendants Smith and McDowell, tendered the sheriff a bond of indemnity and procured him to seize the mules in…
1Opinion of the CourtBoyden, J.
This is a case of the first impression, to-wit: ■.an indictment of the sheriff and those who indemnified ihim for levying upon property in the possession of a son of 'the defendant in the execution, and which was honestly (supposed or rather alleged to be in fact the property of the father.
That it was the duty of the sheriff to make this levy upon the property which the plaintiff honestly believed ,:and alleged to be the property of .the defendant in the execution upon being indemnified, has been regarded as a well-settled law by the Courts and the bar in this country and in England, time…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Griffin v. . HastySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- State v. . SnuggsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- Pearson v. . FisherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1814
- Denson v. . SledgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1829