Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-02-27
Decisions Of THE SUPREME COUnr,
OPTICAL.
DScaons OF the supreme Court OF the
tenn Der Terra, 1seo AAAe' SEP

| -
decisions of the Supreme s,,, - a..
state OF Ie'aHessee, at Knoxv1u.- e.,-
TENDER Ternns 1880. S'R-
| HudAksr vs.. Greer.
inls was an acelon on thes case for an ALLEGED
! The defendant demurred ~
argument the demur was Sustained 100 N'i0n anu on
The principal ground Of the ans.,a :.
the plaintiffs own showing Re has -. ~ aats ifei',
interest as entities him to maintain this so,
1856, Judgment was rendered in the C.ep,s
in Claiborne cospnty against one Boweunan III
| for upwards of $500. "u O'"ers
At the time Of the rendition of said ;,do.
Boweman the owner of a certain frast - i :
situated in said county of Claiborne. unor 49,, au
lien Of the judgment attached; he was also The .e
er as IS alleged, of personal property more than
sufficient to satisfy the Judgment
On the I'd day of February, 1857, an alias writ ot
tiert tacias issued upon the judgment and was
placed in the hands OF deputy sheriff of said coup
ty, the defendant Greer then being high sheriff OF
the county. The plaintiff further alleges, that while
said trust Of land was thus held bound BY the lien OF
the judgment and while the execution issued there
on was in the hands of the sheriff he the plaintiff
purchased SAID land from BOweman, the judgment
debtor, and paid him therefor valuable considera
ton, and that nevertheless the sheriff not regarding
his duty failed and neglected to levy the execution
upon the personal property of Beweman but wrong.
fully levied the same upon said tract of land so pu~
chased by the plaintiff Whereby the plaintif was
forced 70 pay the sum of Sl73 Oh in order to discharge
the land from the lien of said Judgment and ey.
ecuton Il Is farther avered that the Sheriff made
return upon said execution that s.no personal nro
perry OF tne defendant Boweman was to be found
10 satlsfy the same" and therefore he levied unon
salo Iand and this is the "false returnD for which
thus suits brought The other counts of the dec
aration need not be noticed as the question unor,
winch the case depends is raised by the foregoing
Assuming the facts alledged, to be true. can sae
plaintiff be heard to complain of the alleged .sfIse
return. We think not. By the act of iT77. "a 3
Sec D 1t Is declared that for 'every false ree.rn
tne Sher1n shall be liable to penalty of SI2S and
dO aursher hahle to the return pGrtg griezs for
We are of opinion, that under this statute.
onS tne plalnLln In the execution or some
one having the beneficial Interest there
IN, Dy transfer or assignment from him.
eltne IN fact or by operation of law. can be
Iegarued IS the party grieved - by the false re-
oI an execution, SO TO be entitled to main
.Ain An action of damages resulting therefrom. It
'ery oovIons tnat the plaintiff has no pretence
1'r saying tnat ne Is greVed by the false return
A. 4uesIoh as TO the ofEcers failure to exhaust
.ue personal property, before proceeding to lew
upon Inc land, is one exclusively between him and
tne Judgment debtor with which the nreseDt Main.
TN can have nothing to do. r $3.50 P''''--
Inc iand by the admission of the declaration was
encumoered by the lien Of the judgment previous
" 'ne plalnslns purchase and be took il 1a onsre
ue canets therefore, be heard to complain that the
en was made ettectua against the land in his
hands, although in consequence thereof the beneft
VI ms purchase may have been entirely lost to him
~ vas ms own folly and wroag to incur such haz
srG ana ne must abide the result.
Judgment affirmed. b. McK,x>-vx
a rue copy Ieste; W. r. CAswELL, Clerk.