#### Isaac Folsom *v.*William Gregory,

From Pasquotank.

A debtor convicted of fraudulent concealment of his effects, upon an issue between him and A, and ordered into custody thereupon, according to the act of 1822, cli. 1131, is not in execution at the suit ofl!, another creditor, in whose case no such concealment was found or suggested.

Debt for an escape. —On the trial, before Paxton Judge, the case was, that the Plaintiff and one *Cluff,*had obtained severally judgments against one *Wilde,*who was arrested by the Defendant as Sheriff of the county, on writs of *ca. sa.*issued tlicreon, and was duly discharged out of custody, upon giving the bonds required by the act of 1822 *('Taylor’s Rev. c.*1131) for his appearance at the next County Court, to take the benefit of the act, as an insolvent debtor. In the case of *Clufft*it appeared from the record of the Court, that a suggestion was made by him that *Wilde*had fraudulently concealed his estate, and issue being thereon *joined, the*Jury found the suggestion to be true; whereupon, the Court adjudged that *Wilde*should be imprisoned in the public jail, &c until a full and fair disclosure of all his effects, &c. And under this judgment, the Sheriff had held him in custody, and afterwards permitted him to go at large.

In the case of the Plaintiff against *Wilde,*no entry appeared on the record, save this, “ that the surety brought him into Court and surrendeced him.”

Upon this case, the question was, if *Wilde*was in the custody of the Sheriff upon the Plaintiff’s judgment, or not; and the presiding Judge being of opinion that he was, the Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, from which the Defendant appealed.

*234in this Court, the cause was submitted without argument, no Counsel offering on either side.

Tayiqr, Chief-Justice.

It is essential to a recovery in this action against the Sheriff, that the party escaping shall be, proved to have been arrested or charged in execution at the suit of the Plaintiff. In this case, the issue was made up and tried between *Cluff*and *Wilde,*and it was on account of the fraudulent attempt of *Wilde*to deceive his creditors, established on that issue, that the order was made for his commitment. The Sheriff was not bound to take notice of the claim of any other person *;*for it does not necessarily follow that *Wilde*would have been committed at the suit of Folsom, or that the same verdict would have been returned by the Jury. If a debtor be in custody of the Sheriff, at the suit of one person, or by process of law, and another has a *ca. sa.*against him, the Sheriff is not chargeable with an escape at the suit of the latter, unless the writ has been delivered to him. But if the second writ is delivered to him, the party is then in custody by force of that writ, in judgment of law, and the Plaintiff may declare accordingly. *CFrost’s case, 5 Co.*89).

The caution with with which the law abstains from charging a Sheriff witli an escape, where lie has not due notice of the party being in custody at the suit of the person suing for the escape, is strongly shewn in *West-by’scase,*(3 *Coke*71). There *Bustard*was severally in execution at the suit of Iiighion, as well as at the suit of *Westby,*and the Sheriff, at the end of the year, delivered over *Bustard,*amongst others, to the new Sheriff b.y indenture, in which indenture the execution of *Bighton*was mentioned, but the execution at the suit of *Westby*was omitted. And afterwards *Bustard*always being in jail in the time of the new Sheriff, escaped. In a suit brought against the old Sheriff for the escape, it was ar* *235gued for him, that he was not liable, since he had delivered the body of *Bustard,*then being in jail, (o the new Sheriff, consequently the escape began in his time; and ag ¡,e |ia(j the party in his custody, he ought at his peril to take notice of all executions, *being matters of record,*and ought to keep him till all were satisfied.

But it was resolved by the Court, 1st, That when the body'of *Bustard*was delivered to the new Sheriff, as in execution at the suit of *Dighton,*only, by that he was out of Custody of the old Sheriff, and he cannot be within the custody of the new Sheriff, for *Westbifs*execution, because he was not delivered to him, nor the Sheriff *charged with him for Westbifs execution,*and although he was within the walls of the prison, yet it was an escape in law as to *Westby*; and that the oscape began the moment the old Sheriff delivered the prisoners to the new Sheriff.

2. That the old Sheriff ought to give notice to the new Sheriff, of all the executions against any one who is in custody, although the executions are. of record, yet the new Sheriff shall not take notice of them at his peril, but shall be charged only with such whereof the old Sheriff gave him notice.

This case appears to me to shew clearly, upon common law principles, that the Sheriff cannot be chargeable to this Plaintiff for the escape of *Wilde,*however the case may prove to be between *Cluff*and the Defendant.

But I think the same conclusion is deducible from the act of 1822, under which these proceedings have taken place. The Plaintiff’s argument must be, that a commitment, on the finding of the issue between any one creditor who |¡ad arrested Wilde. must be a commitment aa to all; and that the Sheriff should have taken notice of all those claims wherein *Wilde's*bail had surrendered him, and should have detained him tili he was discharged as to all. To this the answer is, that the Court may *236commit for either of three distinct *causes;*1st, fraud or concealment2d, refusing to answer upon oath; 3d, not giving notice to the creditor. Now it may happen that the debtor is committed for not giving notice to the ere-ditor between whom and himself the issue is made up. Shall the commitment be considered as on account of those creditors to whom he had given notice, which, no issue having been tried between him and them, he had no opportunity of shewing ? I think this alone sufficient to decide the case.

I am of opinion that the judgment be reversed, and a new trial granted.

Hare, Judge.

The Plaintiff’s situation seems to differ widely from that of *Gluff. Gluff*contested the question of insolvency with their common debtor Wilde, and was successful ; upon which, the Court ordered *Wilde*to be imprisoned until he should make a full disclosure of his property, &c. This disclosure was to he made for the benefit of *Gluff.*The Plaintiff was not party to the proceedings in that suit, and the order of imprisonment grew only out of the proceedings in that suit. There was no order for commitment in the Plaintiff’s suit5 and it does not appear that the Defendant held *Wilde*in custody therein.

Escapes draw after them heavy penalties, and ought not to bo presumed or made out upon slight grounds_-The record of *Gluff*v. *Wilde*being received in evidence, it proved only that *Wilde*was imprisoned at the suit of *Gluff,*but not at the suit of the Plaintiff.

I think a new trial should be granted.

Per curiam. — Judgment reversed and new trial a? warded.