Case ID: ga_36/html/0095-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Harris, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. M. & R. W. Wade & Co., plaintiffs in error, vs. Thomas H. Stout, defendant in error. Wm. L. Mitchell, plaintiff in error, vs. David Williams, defendant in error.
    Special Bailiffs, created by the County Court acts, are substantially, in their duties and powers, Constables.
    Attachments, though not directed to them by name, when served by them returnable to the Superior Courts, will be sustained as legal.
    Attachment. Motion to dismiss levy. Decided by Judge Clarke, Early Superior Court, April Term, 1867.
    These attachments were returnable to the Superior Court of Early County. The levies were made by the Special Bailiff of the County Court of said county. Defendants replevied the goods. Upon motion of defendant’s attorney, said levies were dismissed by the Court, upon the ground that the Special Bailiff was not authorized by law to levy the attachments.
    This decision and order of the Court is assigned as error.
    
      There is no record (the cases are here on agreed state of facts), and it does not appear who issued the attachments.
    S. S. Stafford, Lyon, DeGraffenreid & Shorter, attorneys for plaintiffs in error.
    R. Holmes Powell, attorney for defendant in error.
   Harris, J.

By the Act creating County Courts their executive officers are called Special Bailiffs, and they are invested with as full powers in the general performance of their duties as are Sheriffs — more powers than are given to Constables, the officers of Justices’ Courts. Substantially, in all their powers and duties, they are Constables. It would be strangely anomalous were we to hold that a class of officers intermediate in grade between Sheriffs and Constables were not designed by the Legislature to be fully competent to perform the ministerial duties that are required of the lower class of such officers. As the Act is indefinite, it iá our duty to give it a liberal construction, so as to fulfill what wc think the Legislature must have intended; and therefore we hold that although attachments are not directed to them by name, as they are “ to Sheriffs and Constables,” these writs may be served and returned by “ Special Bailiffs ” of the County Courts as fully and subject to the same rules as if served and returned by “Constables.”

Judgment reversed.