Case ID: njl_7/html/0075-01.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

John Skillman against Eliza Applegate.
    ON CERTIORARI TO COMMON PLEAS OF SOMERSET.
    1. In an action of trespass against a constable for taking goods claimed by the plaintiff, the constable may give m evidence the judgment upon which the sale of the goods was made under which the plaintiff claimed, in order to shew that the judgment was void and sale fraudulent.
    2. The constable may offer other facts and circumstances, in order to shew that the sale under which the plaintiff claims the goods was fraudulent.
    This was an action of trespass against a constable for taking goods, and was originally commenced before a justice of the peace. The constable had seized the goods as the property of Ephraim Applegate, the plaintiff’s father. On the trial of the appeal before the Common Pleas, the plaintiff produced a paper writing purporting to be a list of articles purchased at the sale of Ephraim Applegate’s property, on execution at the suit of James Clark, and purchased by Eliza Applegate on the 6th of May, 1820, signed by the constable, John Skillman. The defendant objected to this writing being read in evidence, without the production of the judgment under which the sale was made. The Court of Common Pleas overruled the objection and admitted the writing. The defendant then offered the record of the judgment in the suit of James Clark against Ephraim Apple-gate, under which the sale of the goods to the plaintiff had been made, in order to shew that the judgment was void, being a judgment by confession, without process, and without affidavit. The plaintiff Objected to the admission of this ■evidence, and the court sustained the objection.
    The defendant then offered to prove, that the goods were found in the possession of Ephraim Applegate; that he furnished his daughter Eliza the money to purchase the goods, and a variety *of facts, which went to shew that the sale was fraudulent. This evidence was objected to on the' part of the plaintiff, and the court sustained the ■objection and rejected the evidence, and gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
    
      Vroom, for the plaintiff in certiorari,
    Skillman, relied upon two reasons for the reversal of this judgment — 1. Because the Court of Common Pleas rejected proper and ■competent evidence, to wit: a copy of the judgment of ■James Clark against Ephraim Applegate, by virtue of which .the property was sold. 2 South. 479.
    2. Because the said court would not permit the defendant to give evidence that the said sale was fraudulent.
   Per Curiam.

Take a reversal. The Court of Common Pleas were manifestly wrong in both instances.

Judgment reversed.