Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-03-22

OFFICIAL.
Decisions Of the Supreme Court eE aAa
state OF Tennessee, at Knexvtl1es Ssp-
EembeK Terms 1850.
KaTLn s. Horall .na oshsr,.


This action is founded upon delivery bond
executed 10 Walker as 9 constable by Mills the
testafor Of Howell aad wife, and others. The
plaintiff failed in his aetioa and has brought ths
case to this court
The facts material 10 be noticed, arc as follows:
An sxscstion upon magistrates Judgement. vas
placed In the hands Of Walker 8 constable Of
Hawkins county, in favor Of Powell Co. rs Fer
guson, the principal, and Mills, the stayor. This
execution was levied by Walker on certain persona
property Of Mills, the stsyor, who gave bond for
the delivery on the day Of sails, but failed to deliver
the same.
Thereupon Walker, instead Of proceeding uaisr
the forfeited bond, caused another execution to be
certified and cent to Jefferson county, with the
view Of coercing sssisfaction cut Of Fergusoa tbs
principal, upon which an execution was issued,
pursuant to the statute, BY justice Of the latter
county. This execution was pLaced By Walker in
.he hands Of Price, constable Of Jefferson, che
as alleged by the plaintiff failed to obtain ssfisac-
tion eat Of Ferguson, and thersupon Walker, the
plaintiff resored to this action to have satisfaction
ont Of the parties to The delivery bond.
The principal ground Of defence on the trial vas
that Price had, in fact collected the amount Of the
judgment from Ferguson upon the execution placed
in his hands, and that, consequently the Judgment
was extinguished. This fact was submitted % the
jury and found in favor Of the defendant
The statement Of Price, (Who had removed be-
yond the Jurisdiction OF the eourt) in regard 70
tnls coueeuon eL money, on the process in hls
hands, was admitted to go to ths jury a. ssidsucs
in support Of the defence relied on To this exesp-
tion taken, but the court overruled the excep-
ticn, and instructed the jury that Price occupied
the relation Of agent and that his admission While
the process was in his hands, was competent svi
dence in this action for the defendants.
In this instruction We perceive no error. See
Moore ys. Bettis, ii Humph, So.
The discussion Of this point, however, need nes
be pressed there is another fatal objecioa 10 the
plaintiffs recovery.
The fact is neither alleged nor proved, that The
plaintiff, constable, was held responsible FOR the
satisfaction Of the judgment to Powell S Co., OF
that ne has suffered loss or injury By the monde
livery Of the property a. stipulated in the bond.
Upon uhst principle, then, can he maintain this
action. The delivery bond, though taken to him IS
constable is not for his personal benefit but fer the
sole benefit Of the Judgment creditor and it innurss
in lay accordingly. II . suit be brought upca the
bond at sll, the officers is merely moved for
the benefit Of the creditor And If She creditor
choose tG foregO his remedy the bond or 70 abaa
don the judgment, what light has the officer to En-
force the bond? None whatever. II the oficer, IS
such, had been made liable for the Judgment, and
had actually satisfied it, it may be tn at upon 81
implied transfer to him by operation Of Law. he
night have resorted to an action on the bond.
Smith vs. Alexander 4, Sneed 3s2. Fintz vs.
Thompson i, Head 456.
But such is not the present case.
Itis clear that the plaintiff shows no legal right
o maintain the action, and for this If thsre
Eers nothing else in the case, the judgment must
,e affirmed. McKIxxEr.
A true copy. wR CAswELL. Clerk.