Case ID: johns_5/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tinkom against Purdy and Purdy.
    A sa,c un5cI‘ execution on a. judgment, in a justice’s court, may be adjouroration of6 the officer; and the be no fraud or completion of the sale* at a different time and place, will be valid, if there abuse.
    IN error, on certiorari from a justice’s court. 7 J Tinkom was sued in the court below, for a trespass. It 1 e appeared that he was a constable, and had an execution against the defendants, on which he took certain blacksmith’s tools, which were advertised for sale, at auction, at a particular time and place ; on the day of sale, and after two bids were made, one of the bidders, who had bid 12 dollars, refused to bid more, until he saw the tools. The defendants objected to adjourning the Sale to a different place; but the constable adjourned to the blacksmith’s shop, where the tools were, at the distance of more than a mile from the place where the auction commenced, and there sold the tools to the highest- bidder, for 24 dollars. The jury found a verdict against the plaintiff, in error, on which the justice gave j udgment.
    
      N. Williams, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      JV. King, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The adjournment of the sale to a different place, was a matter of discretion with the constable ; and the question must always be, whether this discretion has been abused. These is no charge of fraud or abuse in the present case ; and the constable could not, therefore, be liable as a trespasser. The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.