Case ID: njl_7/html/0035-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ford, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Hartshorne against Thomas Kierman.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    1. An action upon tho eleventh section of the act concerning distresses {llsv. Laws 202,) to recover double the value of goods distrained, can only be maintained by the tenant, and not by a stranger, whose goods have been distrained instead of the tenant’s.
    2. In this action, it must appear upon the record of the justice what tho single damages were.
    This was an action on the case, brought by Kierman, the plaintiff below, against Hartshorne, upon the eleventh section of tho act concerning distresses, (liev. Laws 2u2) which enacts, that “ in case any distress shall be made by virtue or color of this act for rent pretended to be in arrear and due, where in truth no rent is in arrear or due to the person distraining, that then the owner of such goods shall and may recover double the value of the goods.” The plaintiff, in his declaration, demanded one hundred dollars, for that the defendant, under pretence that there was rent due to him from Aaron R. Jones, did, as the landlord of the said Jones, distrain and sell the goods of the plaintiff,' * qf the value of fifty dollars, contrary to the eleventh section of the act concerning distresses, whereby an action had accrued to the plaintiff to have and demand, of the said John Hartshorne the sum of $100, being double the value of the goods so by him unlawfully distrained and sold.”
    At the trial before the justice, the defendant, Hartshorne, did not appear, and the justice, after hearing the evidence adduced on the part of the plaintiff, gave judgment for the 'sum of $100 damage, with $2.12 costs.
    
      Wall now moved to reverse this judgment on two grounds
    1. That an action, under the eleventh section of the act concerning distresses, for double the amount of the distress, could only be maintained by the tenant, and could not be maintained by a stranger, whose goods had been distrained instead of the tenant’s. This was manifest from a consideration of the whole act taken together, for the eighth section of the act enacted, that the property of others, though in the possession of the tenant, should not be dis-trained.
    2. That the judgment was informal. The justice ought to have ascertained the value of the goods distrained, and then have given double the amount of their value. There must be some adjudication as to the value of the goods, ■otherwise it cannot appear whether the judgment was for double the value or not.
    
      Wood, contra.
   Ford, J.

I do not see how this section, which gives .double the value of the goods distrained, can be applicable to tlio goods which are not distrainable: and by the eighth section of the act the goods of a stranger are not distrainable.

Curia advisare vult.

At a subsequent day in the term the court said, the judgment must be reversed upon both the grounds taken. 1. That the action could not be brought by a stranger. 2, That it ought to appear upon the record what the single damages were.

Judgment reversed.