Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1881-12-21
THE LIABILITY OF sHERIFFs.

The United States supreme court re-
Gently decided an important case-that
of the executors of William G. Conner,
late sheriff of the city and county of
New York, against William 81. Long,
assignee in bankruptcy of Benjamin Fl.
Spaulding, brought before it by writ
of error to the circuit court for the
southern district of New York. The
question involved is one which has never
before been presented to the supreme
court, namely, whether sheriff is indi-
vidually liable by acts performed In good
faith in the proper discharge of his duty
and without knowledge of their illegal
character. The case In which this ques-
ton arises is briefly as follows: On
July 20, 1875, warrant of attachment
was regularly issued in an action begun
on that day by Alfred J. Dickerson
against Benjamin FL. Spaulding, in the
supreme court of the state of New York.
Under this warrant William G. Conner,
sheriff Of the city and county of New
York, levied upon the property belong
ing to Mr.. Spaulding which is in contre-
versy in this case. Three days later GER
tain creditors of Mr.. Spaulding, who are
now represented by the assignee, insti-
tuted bankruptcy proceedings against
him, In the district court of the United
States for the district of Massachusetts,
and on September he was adiudged a
bankrupt. In the meantime and after
the fling of the petition In bankruptcy,
the sheriff, acting under an order made
by one of the justices of the supreme
court of New York in the attachment
suit, sold the property levied upon, and
the proceeds were used to satisfy the
Judgment rendered In favor of Mr.. Dick
erson. The assignee in bankruptcy of
Mr.. Spaulding then brought action
against the sheriff to recover damages for
the wrongful sale of this property after
the institution of bankruptcy proceed
ings- The main question is whether the
sheriff is liable as an Individual for his
acts as an officer when such acts were
performed under the mandate of a COM
petent court, and without the exercise of
any individual discretion. The court
below affirmed the liability of the sheriff
upon the authority, mainly, of long
line of English decisions which, it was
believed, established that rule. The
supreme court, in carefully prepared
opinion by Justice Matthews, admits
4,o4 ro,,oo4a1 dooic;o1c ~, 4I,o E,r1;cl,
courts have established judicialIy the
rule that the sheriff is individually liza
BILE in such cases, but declines to govern
itself by the English precedents, for the
reason that in 1889 parliament, recog-
nizing the injustice and inexpediency of
the rule established by the courts, inter-
posed by several acts to protect the
sheriff III the performance of his official
duty against such actions. This legisla-
ton Justice Matthews says is evidence of
the highest character that the rule in
question ought never to have been es-
tablished. Furthermore, it can hardly
be assumed that congress intended in
the bankrupt act to restore rule of
liability which had become obsolete in
England nearly thirty years before.
The court, therefore, regards itself as
justified in deciding the case according
to reason and equity, and not according
to precedent; and it holds that the sheriff
is not liable. The judgment of the cir
circuit court was reversed with costs, and
the cause remanded, with instructions to
award a new trial.