Skip to content

Seeley v. Birdsall

Seeley against Birdsall

Seeley v. Birdsall, 15 Johns. 267 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1818)

Court: New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided: May 15, 1818
Citations: 15 Johns. 267

Cited by 9

Headnotes

Anactipn or, ga!nsCtaesheriff tarn, ¡í'withfú oMheT/or ffeMiRngincerIain sriitsJ, 1801. sess. 24. Ñ. R. L. 155.) tuns^oundto cause of action y”se county™ ja¡dMshvenueS is, a distinction be-’•ween acts done colore officii, and virofficii: in the former case, the act being of such a nature that his office gives him no authority to do it, the sheriff is not Erotected by the statute: but where in doing an act within the limits of* his authority, he exercises is authority improperly, or abuses the confidence which the law reposes in him, these are cases to which the statute applies.

Summary

THIS was an action on the case against the defendant, late sheriff of the county of Seneca, for a false return on a writ of fieri facias issued out of this court, at the suit of the plaintiff against W. I. Seeley. The cause was tried before Mr. J. Spencer, at the circuit in Cayuga county, where the venue was laid, in June, 1817. The plaintiff recovered a judgment against W, I. Seeley for 3,988 dollars of debt, and 14 dollars and 4'3 cents damages and costs. A fieri facias was issued thereon, to which the defendant returned, that he had sold all the goods and chattels of W. J. Seeley to be found in his bailiwick, and that he had made out of the same the sum of 10 dollars and 25 cents, and that he had advertised for sale all his right _ o and title to a certain lot of land. It was proved that one of the defendant’s deputies had levied on property of W. I. Sééley, to the amount of three or four hundred dollars j thas the defendant recognized the levy; and that being requested by the plaintiff to sell, he refused, aqd never had sold the property levied on. The defendant’s counsel moved that the court would charge the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, because the plaintiffhad not proved any act done by the defendant in the county of Cayuga., The judge, however, charged the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of this court, and they, accordingly, found for the plaintiff.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

An action on the case against a sheriff for a false return on an execution, is within the first section of the statute, (1 JV L. 155.) “ for the more easy pleading in certain suits and, consequently, the burthen of the proof, that the cause of action arose within the county wherein the venue is laid, is thrown on the plaintiff, and the failure to give that proof entitled the defendant to a verdict of not guilty.

The words of the statute are very plain and perspicuous. If any action upon the case be brought against any sheriff, &c. for or concerning any matter or thing by him doni, by virtue of his office, the said action shall be laid within the county, where the trespass or fact be done and committed, and not elsewhere; and if upon the trial, the plaintiff shall not prove that the cause of his action arose within the county wherein such action is laid, in every such case, the jury which shall try the same, shall find the defendant not guilty, &c.

The case of Griffith v. Walker (1 Wils. 336.) which considers an action against a sheriff for a false return as transitory, was prior to the statute rendering actions against sheriffs for acts done by virtue of their offices local. The true distinction is between an act done colore officii, and *270 virtute officii; in the former case the sheriff is not protecled by the statute, where the act is of such a nature that his office gives him no authority to do it; but where in doing rbm. within the limits of his authority, he exercises that authority improperly, or abuses the confidence which the láw reposes in him, to such cases the statute extends.

New trial granted.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Dennison v. Plumb18 Barb. 89 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1854)
People ex rel. Kellogg v. Schuyler4 N.Y. 173 (1850) · Dissent
Gerber v. Ackley37 Wis. 43 (1875)
Burns v. Clark66 P. 12 (Cal. 1901)
Bishop v. McGillis50 N.W. 779 (Wis. 1891)
Berry v. Schaad28 Misc. 389 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1899)

Most recent

Mayor of Jersey City v. Schoppe82 A. 913 (N.J. 1912)
Burns v. Clark66 P. 12 (Cal. 1901)
Berry v. Schaad28 Misc. 389 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1899)
Bishop v. McGillis50 N.W. 779 (Wis. 1891)
Gerber v. Ackley37 Wis. 43 (1875)
People v. Tweed13 Abb. Pr. 419 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1872)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.