Case ID: ga_92/html/0529-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jones v. Lamon.
    1. The attachment under which the levy was made having been sued out by the attorney of the plaintiff in that case, and the facts and circumstances showing beyond question that there was no reason to believe that any property was or would be within reach of the attaching officer except the horse and buggy on which the levy was made, and the attorney having been present when the levy was made, and not having said or done anything to forbid or . disapprove the act of the levying officer, it is a necessary inference that the act of the officer in seizing the particular property was as much the result of the attorney’s conduct as it would have-been if the latter had expressly pointed out the property and directed the officer to seize it under the attachment. The levy should therefore be treated as having been made by direction of the attorney, and with authority from his client, the property at. the time of the levy being in the possession of the defendant in attachment.
    2. As the property in fact belonged, not to the defendant in attachment but to his daughter, if the attorney knew or had reasonable-grounds for believing it did belong to her, he was chargeable with notice of the daughter’s title, and notice to him would be notice to his client. On this ground the client would be liable in an action by the daughter for the actual damages sustained by her in consequence of the levy, and might in the discretion of the jury be subject also to exemplary or punitive damages, if either in thd act or the intention the tort was attended with circumstances of aggravation.
    3. If the attorney was ignorant of the daughter’s title, and believed in good faith that the title was in the defendant in attachment, as his possession indicated, and if he caused the levy to be dismissed without any unreasonable delay upon being informed of her title, the client would be liable to the daughter for actual damages only.
    4. Actual damages recoverable for the wrongful seizure of personal property embrace the necessary expenses incurred in regaining possession, together with reasonable hire for the property during the time it was withheld from the owner. A part of the expense would be the loss of time, if any, by the owner in giving necessary personal attention to the business.
    5. Though the court may have committed some errors, yet in view of the evidence and the small amount of the verdict, there was no error in denying a new trial.
    July 17, 1893.
    Action for damages. Before Judge "Willis. City court of Columbus. October term, 1892.
    Belali Lamon sued Rufus Jones, alleging that defendant in the name of Jones Brothers wrongfully, maliciously and without probable cause, procured an attachment to be issued by Bowles, a justice of the peace, in favor of Jones Brothers against John Lamon, and having done so maliciously and out of mere vexation and without any reasonable or probable cause, procured and caused the attachment to be levied by Bartlett, a lawful constable, upon a horse and phaeton at the time in petitioner’s possession and her property, and the constable, being thus made the tool to carry out the malicious and wicked purpose of defendant, stopped petitioner and the horse and phaeton upon the public streets in Columbus and took them from her in the presence of a great multitude, etc. Defendant demurred upon the ground that the plaintiff did not allege that the levy was. made by the order or direction of defendant, or that he was at the time present aiding and abetting the officer therein, or that the same was afterwards ratified by him, or that he had any knowledge, before or at the time of the levy, of the officer’s intentions and purposes, actings and doings. Plaintiff obtained a verdict for $35, and defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. It is unnecessary to set out the grounds of the motion.
   Judgment affirmed.

Miller & Miller, for plaintiff in error,

Thornton & McMichael, contra.