Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0807-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VICKERY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 894
    DIMAIO v. KOHLER et.
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 7863.
    Decided Oct. 31, 1927.
    First Publication of this Opinion.
    Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
    72. AMERCEMENT — Where property, taken on execution, has been spirited away from sheriff without his knowledge, consent or negligence, action in amercement will not lie.
    Error to Common Pleas.
    Judgment affirmed.
    James J. Lovano, Cleveland, for DiMaio.
    E. C. Stanton, Cleveland, for Kohler, et.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS.
    Plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, brought an action against Fred Kohler, Sheriff, to amerce him for failing to account, as he claims, for two wine presses, that had been taken in execution against the judgment debtor. Judgment was rendered in favor of the sheriff.
    The wine presses were put into a place which was locked and a keeper put in charge and, without knowledge, consent or negligence on the part of the sheriff, these goods, it is claimed, were spirited away and disposed of, and it is sought to hold the sheriff responsible by way of an action in amercement.
   OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

VICKERY, J.

Such action may be brought under 12103 GC., which provides as follows: (Here follows quotation from above section.

It will be noted in reading this statute that the instant case comes under none of the aforementioned causes for which the sheriff may be amerced and we think, therefore, that the suit was not properly planted, and that the judgment below was right.

(Sullivan, PJ., and Levine, J., concur.)