New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-12-06
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME coUEE

WAsIuVGTON, Dec. 5.-Thc most important
case decided by the Supreme Court o. the United stt's
to-day was No. 70 executors Of William g. Conner. late
sheriff Of the City and County Of New York. against
William II. Long. assignee In bankruptcy Of Benjamin
II SpnulGng. brought here by o writ 81 error To the
United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of
Ncw-York The quest on involved Ia this T. one
which has never before been presented 10 the Supreme
Court OF the United states VIZ: Whether q sheriff Is
Individually liable By acts performed in good faith in
the proper discharge Of his official duty. and without
knowlodsc OF their illegal character The IN which
this question arises l. briefly a. follows:
On the 2Oth OF July. 1872 warrant Of attachment was
duv and regularly Issued In an action begun on that day
by Alfred ]. Dlckorson against Benjamin II. spauld-
ing In the Supreme Court uf the State OF New
York. Under this warrant, william O. Conner,
Sheriff Of the City and County Of NcwYor. levied upon
the property belonging to Mr. Spaudlng whch Is IN con
rOyorsy ID ils case. lhfe' uA5n hle certain creditors
OF Mr. spauldng. who are now represented by the a--
in tie Dstrr Couri Of tie United States for ie district
Of MassacEusetts, and on September be adudg.d
-, order made Lv on, off the Justices M the S,rr,
Court OF Newly DIRK in the attachment suit, Aforesaid
sold the properly levied upon by him and tue proceeds
were used 10 satisfy the judgment rendered In
bankruptcy Of Mr. spauldns then Drought
action against the sheriff 10 recover damages
wrongful sale Of this property after the institution Of
bankruptcy proceedings The main question is whcihor
the sheriff Is liable individual Tor his acts a. an
officer when such acts were performed under the man
date OF competent Court, and without the
any Individual discretion Inc Court hclo" affirmed the
liability OF the Sheriff. upon the authority mainly, OF
long line OF English decisions, which, 10 bccS ed
taDHhhed th"l rue rms Court III carefully prepared
opinion by Justice Matthcws, admits that repeated
dec sions In the English courts have established
judciay the rule that tho Shcrh II individually liable
IN such cases TINS Court, however declines 10 govern
itself BY the English precedcnts, Tor tho reason
that III 1889 Parliament, recognizing the In
justice and mexpodiency Of the rule established by
the courts, nterpOsed by acts second and third
Victoria e. ~ ana by several later acts TO project
the sheriff, in the performance of HE official dnty against
such actions. TINS legislation JuEtice Matthews says
Is eVdehce OF lhe hIHhtst adcttr mat the rule In
question ought never TO have been established Further
more, II can hardly be assumed That CONGRESS intended
in the BaHkrnpt Act 10 restore rule oil Inability winch
had become obsolete IN England nearly thirty Years be
deciding the case according ~ reason aud equity and
not according TO precedent; and II holds chat tue
feet nrsdction unIii Tho institutio, a. IN IN p
ceodings III bankruptcy but the TACT which put an
end to lie jurisdiction did not appear by its record
and consequently one Of wicn the herh could not
by any legal possibility, have official notice and without
such notice be Was bound to obey tho order OF the Court
laches 10 him individually AS - consequence VI such
Obedience
costs and the cause renanded. with Instructions to
award new trial.
The other decsons rendered by the Court to-day we're
IA follows:
No 97-rhe brig Annie Lindsey ct al nppcllnnts, ast
United states Tor Southern District OF NewYofkThe
decree 81 he Court Do" Is Affirmed with costs opinion ~
No 2sS-Tne United States appellant agt Charles NJ Tay
lori appeal from the Court OF CainArho Judgment Of
Court u claims affirmed Opinion by Justice Woods.
80 6-GeOrgo Hearst, appellant agt. Fannie Is Hncgan,
@dmlnstfarE etc 4ppea from ne Circuit Court % s
affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Justice Harlan.
7J.-CAyin IL Hale and Ohe plaintiffs agt. Duncan
B. Finch TO the supreme Court OF Washington
Judgment affirmed with costs Opinion by Justice
No iO4 -Henry ~ Walker and Others appellants agt.
Circuit OF tho United stLes the Northern District
OF New ork-Dcree affirmed with costs Opinion by JUS
no 69-John c. Belk plaintiff in error ogt Henry
and others In ~ the supreme Court Of Mon
tana-Judgmont affirmed with costs Opinion By Chief
No Ss~samuel p Williams plaintiff in error, agt the
township NOitawa Mch In error 20 the Circuit Court or
the United states Western District OF Michigan
Judgm reversed vi costs and cause renlanded with III
recOns the suit At the cost Of the plaintiff In error
Opinion py Chief Justice Waite
No lO6-Gardner A. Sage Jr appellant agt Jonathan O..
WynkOOp assignee, &c. OF 81 Appeal nom the CIRCUIT Court
OF the United states for the Northern District OF New York
Decree affirmed with costs Opinion by Chief Justice ae
r. Frman assignee 10 the Supreme Court Of
Stah Judgment affirmed with costs and Interest opinion
by Chief Justice Waite.
NO. 1.-THE County Court Of Knox County, Missouri,
Hhrshman, agt-Ordered for reargument with No b23
NO lorlgna The State Of NeWYOrk complainant, agt
swertO cross bill and replication 10 TO original b
ahd com mission ordered 10 Sidney special
commissioner 10 tako testimony.
Inc ionOWing cases were argued or submitted on
No sl5-Wilism II Wood, appellant hgt the Darlington
and missouri railroad Company in kebraska.
, nc I9Sn Of LSuiAYie plaintiff In error. ag
NO iU6s-Ihe County Of Clay. plaintiff agt
No. l6i-Lewis Hammaok oters appellanta AIT the
No lB2-Hooart Digger and others, plaintiffs error
| agL W. p. Booock and othets.