Case ID: scl_6/html/0196-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Colcock, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Columbia, November Term, 1812.
    John Seehorn, vs. James Darwin, Sen.
    Gist and Hooker, for the Motion.
    
    Evans, Contra.
    
    No action iiesagainst a person ing'andas" sisting’ a debtor who has been dM-Tc™" capedd eS"
    Motion to reverse the decision, on demurrer.
    Tried before his honour Judge Brevard.
    This was a special action on the case. The declaration alledged, that the plaintiff had a judgment, an(l capias ad satisfaciendum, against James Bar-win, Jun. upon which ca. sa. he was in custody. That James Darwin jun. contrary to the will of the sheriff escaped ; and that James Darwin, sen. knowing the premises, and to injure the plaintiff, and to prevent him from having satisfaction of his judgment, did during the escape and eloignment of James Darwin, jun. harbour, comfort, hide, and secrete him; and aided and assisted to keep him away from, and to elude the search of the sheriff; and that he furnished him with horses, money, clothing, &e. to go away, where the sheriff could not find or take him, and that during the said eloignment, and escape, to prevent the sheriff from taking the said James Darwin jun. he falsely affirmed, to the sheriff, that the said James Darwin jun. was not in the house of the said James Darwin, sen. when in fact, he was in the house ; whereby the plaintiff lost his damages recovered, &e.
    Demurrer to the declaration and joinder. The court supported the demurrer.
    The plaintiff moved the Constitutional Court at Columbia, to reverse the decision, and to overrule the demurrer, on the ground that the facts, set forth in the declaration, shew a good and lawful cause for action.
   Colcock, J.

This action cannot he supported either by precedent or principle. I have never read, or heard of such an action; though such occurrences must frequently take place, nor does it hear any analogy to cases quoted. There is no pri-vity of contract between the parties, no consideration moving the defendant, no responsibility on him to the plaintiff ; and no injury done to him, by the express shewing of the plaintiff himself; for supposing that he lost his debt by the escape, he has a remedy against the sheriff, and therefore he at all events, has sustained no injury by the harbouring, as it is styled. And further, it is not certain that he would have retaken him, had he been told he was in the house; nor if he had retaken htm, is it certain that he would have obtained his money, for he might have taken the benefit of the Act. The court would not be induced to establish a new form of ac- ■ tion, without manifest necessity, and none such appears in this case. I am therefore against the motion.

Justice Grimke, Bay, and Nott, concurred.