Case ID: va_4/html/0288-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HOLMES, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Jacob Zimmerman v. Frederick Buzzard’s Administrators.
    Jailors — Fee for Support of Debtor — Notice of Imprisonment. — Under the Act of 12th February, 1823, ch., 30, § 2 and 3, concerning Jailors, a written notice of the imprisonment of the debtor is necessary from the Jailor to the creditor, his agent or Attorney, to enable the Jailor to recover his fees for supporting the debtor under the creditor’s execution.
    Same — Same—Notice Essential. — The knowledge by the creditor, that his debtor is in Jail under his execution, will not dispense with the written notice.
    Same — Same—What Time -"lust Expire. — Sixty days (after the notice) must expire before the Jailor’s right; to move for his fees, accrues: and he cannot recover for fees due prior to his notice.
    The Act of Assembly passed on the 12th February, 1823, entitled 1 ‘an Act, concerning Jailors, and for other purposes,”  declares in its second section, that where the debtor is confined in jail upon mesne or final process, the creditor shall be responsible to the Jailor, for his jail fees, provided, however, that before such creditor shall be rendered responsible, the Jailor shall notify in writing the creditor, his agent or Attorney, of the imprisonment of the debtor. The third section declares, that the Jailor may demand of the creditor, &c. at the termination of every sixty days, the amount of his account for the maintenance of the debtor, and if the creditor fails to make immediate payment, the Jailor may, on giving ten days notice to the creditor, &c. recover the amount thereof, by motion to the Court, of which he is Jailor.
    Under this Daw, the Plaintiff, as Jailor of Hampshire Superior Court, gave a written notice to the Defendants, on the 20th April, 1824, that Archibald M’Vicker was then in his jail at their suit; and had been so in custody for nearly three months. On the 14th day of May, 1824, the Plaintiff gave another written notice to the Defendants, setting forth, that by virtue of a Capias ad Satisfaciendum, which had issued from the Clerk’s office of the Superior Court of Hampshire, at the suit of the Defendants, he, the Plaintiff,-had' had in his custody, the body of the said Archibald M’Vicker, since the 28th of January, 1824; demanding of them the amount of the jail fees, which were stated to be thirty-five dollars, sixty-two cents, and notifying them that on their failure to do so, he should on the *first day of the ensuing Court, move the said Superior Court to award judgment and execution for the same.
    This notice was served on the Defendants more than ten days before the session of the Court, and the fees not having been paid, the motion was accordingly made. At the trial it was proved, that the Plaintiff was the Jailor, that the said debtor was committed to the jail on the 28th January, under a Ca. Sa. issued from the said Clerk’s office at the suit of the Defendants, and that he had been ever since held in custody, and supported by the Plaintiff : that the Defendants were present and saw the said M’Vicker arrested on the Ca. Sa. but that they had not received from the Jailor any written or verbal notice of the imprisonment of the said debtor, until the 20th April, when the notice before recited was given.
    The Superior Court adjourned the following questions arising' out " of this Case to the General Court.
    1. Is a written notice of the imprisonment of the debtor necessary from the Jailor to the Defendant creditor, to enable such Jailor to recover the fees for supporting the debtor of the creditor?
    2. Will a knowledge of the debtor’s being imprisoned in jail at the suit of the creditor, be sufficient to dispense with notice in writing from the Jailor to the creditor?
    3. As only one month and a few days elapsed between the writen notice, (20th April,) and making the present motion, can judgment be rendered in less than sixty days after the said 20th April, and if it can, ought it to include the Jailor’s fees accruing from the 28th January last, until the date of the notice?
    
      
       See the Acts of 1822, cb. 30, § 2, 3, p. 32.
    
   HOLMES, J.,

declared the unanimous opinion of the Court:

1. That a written notice of the imprisonment of the debtor is necessary from the Jailor to the Defendants as representatives of the creditor, &c. to enable the Jailor to recover the fees for supporting the debtor of such creditor.

2. That a knowledge of the debtor’s being in Jail at the suit of the creditor, will not be sufficient to dispense with notice in writing, from the Jailor to the creditor, his agent, or Attorney. Por although the creditor thus knows of the confinement of the debtor, yet he does not know of the debtor’s inability, or unwillingness to pay his jail fees, or of the Jailor’s holding him responsible, until he receives the notice prescribed by Law.

*3. Sixty days after notice given by the Jailor in writing, must expire, before his right to move for his fees, accrues; and he cannot recover his fees which accrued prior to the notice in writing of the 20th April, 1824, against the creditor by virtue of the Act of Assembly.