Case ID: ohio_2/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ethan Stone, for the use of the Bank of Cincinnati, v. William Ruffin, Sheriff.
    Sheriff can not be required by the plaintiff to pay money made on execution, before return of writ. Demand made before return is no foundation for amercement.
    This was a writ of error to the judgment of the court of common pleas of Hamilton county, on a motion to amerce the sheriff, in which judgment was given for the defendant. It was reserved in Hamilton county, and the case was as follows:
    The notice to amerce recited a judgment and execution, Ethan Stone, for the use, etc. v. Joel Williams. It recited a levy and a sale upon execution, returnable to April term, 1824, a sale made on February 23, 1824. A notice to the sheriff that the Bank of the United States were the real owners of the judgment, and a notice from them that they would not receive paper of the Bank of Cincinnati in payment. A demand of payment, made on the .sheriff, March 1, 1824, and a refusal to pay, except in paper of the Bank of Cincinnati, for which the sale had been made.
    
      The defendant put in an answer to the motion, alleging that it was no ease for amercement; that there was no law authorizing the amercement, and relying upon the statute of limitations. The common pleas gave judgment for the defendant, to reverse which this writ of error was brought.
    The cause was elaborately argued by Este and Fox, for plaintiff in error, and by C. Hammond and N. Wright, for defendant. It was, however, decided upon a point not involving the general merits, and the arguments are therefore omitted.
   By the Court :

Upon examining this .record, we find that the writ of execution was returnable to April term, 1824; that the sale was made in February, 1824, and'the demand upon the sheriff to pay over the money was made March 1, 1824. The demand thus made is not one upon which the sheriff can be subjected, on motion, to amercement. He is not Abound to pay over the money to the plaintiff until return of the writ. On the contrary, he ought to hold it until the proceedings have been examined, and the sale confirmed by the court. The judgment must for this reason be afflrmod. 
      
      Note by the Editor. — Sheriff can not be amerced for not executing ca. sa., unless it is indorsed “funds deposited,” etc., x. 45. Nor where return is regular, though false, xii. 220. Other cases relating to amercement, see xii. 210; Wright, 720; vi. 449; i. 275.