Case ID: njl_3/html/0010-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MERSHON against M’CULLOUGH.
    OS CERTIORARI.
    The- action below, was brought by M’Cullough against the plaintiff in error, late constable, who as it is charged in the state .of demand, while constable, in virtue of an execution in his hands against the said M;Cullough, took and arrested him, and delivered him to the custody of [*o] the keeper of the jail, &c., and also on the same day took and seized certain goods, chattels, and wearing apparel of the said M’Cullough, particularly enumerated, of the value of $100, and on the same day converted the same to his own use, and hath neglected to render an account of the moneys arising from the sale thereof, or to pay the same, or any part thereof, to the plaintiff in the said execution named, in satisfaction of the debt, interest, and costs in the execution, or to indorse or credit the same, or cause the [317] same to be indorsed credited on the said execution, by reason whereof the said M’Cullough was kept and detained in jail until he paid the whole of the debt, interest and costs on the said execution, without any credit, allowance or deduction therefrom for the said goods, chattels, and wearing apparel so seized and taken by the said Mershon, the defendant below, or any allowance for the money arising from the said goods, &e. On this state of demand there was a trial, verdict, and judgment for the plaintiff below for $50; on which the defendant below brings this certiorari.
    
    The counsel for the plaintiff in error insisted that the state of demand did not set out a legal cause of action; that the goods levied on was a satisfaction of the execution, and that the defendant in the execution, the plaintiff below, had his remedy against the plaintiff in the action on which the execution was issued, for improperly detaining him in prison.
   But the Court said that the state of demand was sufficient ; it clearly and distinctly charged the defendant below with seizing the goods of the defendant in this court, to a considerable amount in value, under color of an execution in his hands, and proceeding as though no such seizure had been made; and not applying the goods so seized to the purposes required by law, but, on the contrary, converting and disposing of them to his own use, whereby the injury complained of was sustained by the plaintiff below, and all this is found true by the verdict. This record brings under our view a gross act of oppression [*o] and injustice, exercised by a public officer, under color of law; and as we perceive no error in it, let the judgment be affirmed.