The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1883-11-21
ANDREW SKINNER, USE, etc.
VS..
R4STER WILSON sheriff ct nj

! ANDREW SKINNER, USE, etc.
VS..
BANTER WILSON, Sheriff, ct al
Appeal from the Circuit Court of
Holmes county, Hon. c. II. Campbell,
Judge.
Mollon against a Sheriff for failure
to make return of an execution at the
proper time. The facts are as follows:
The execution was issued by the clerk
on the 10th day oil March, 1882, return
able on the 9th Of March, 1882, and
handed to the plaintiff therein in per-
son. He kept it in his possession until
March Goth, and then handed it to the
sheriff with a request that it be forthwith
executed. 1t then being only seven
days before court, the sheriff declined to
execute it. Plaintiff insisted that it
should be done as personal favor to
him, and said that if the sheriff would
specially deputize one Doty, who lived
in the neighborhood which was also the
neighborhood of defendant, he would
carry the writ to D0ty and the sheriff
should have no trouble and no risk, and
incur no liability by appointing Doty
Yielding to this persuasion, the sheriff
Endorsed the deputization to Doty on
the writ and delivered it to plaintiff who
carried it to Doty. The latter executed
it by levying on a horse which was at
once claimed and bonded by third per
son. On the first day of court, the re-
turn day of the writ, Doty carried it to
the sheriff and procured the latter to
writ out his return upon the back of the
paper, and left it in the sherif's office.
but failed to sign the return, as Aquired
by 1928, Code 1880. The sheriff failed
to return this process to the clerks office,
and for this failure the present motion
is brought under 3 S3l, Code 1880, seek
ing to hold the sheriff and his suret4es
liable for the full amount called for by
the execution. The court below gave
judgment for the defendants and the |
plaintiff appeals.
9. Y. Gwin for the appellant
Hooker & Wilson, contra.
CHALMERS, J., Held
/. Where an execution is placed in !
the hands of q, sheriff within less than
fifteen days before the return day there
of, he has no right under 7 1743 Code |
1880 to treat it as void process and dis
regard it altogether. If it be delivered
to him too late to be executed, he should
retnrn it with an endorsement to that
effect.
2. 1t is evident that the sheriff in
tended in this case to return the writ as
having come to hand too late for action,
and that he was persuaded out of this
course by the entreaties of the plaintiff
and by the promised release from all
liability if he should appoint the special
deputy. The special deputy thereby be-
come the private agent of the plaintiff
in execution, and the sheriff was not
bound by his default.
3. The failure to return the writ oc-
Cured after it came back to the hands
IF tae sheriff, and if there had been no
iefault of duty by the deputy and moth
ng done by the plaintiff to mislead the
sheriff or to make him less vigilant than =
he otherwise would have been, he would
nave been liable to the penalties of the
=
4. Statutes such as are invoked in this /
ase are regarded as of character so o
highly penal that very slight circum- O
tances are held to exempt officers from
heir operation. o
Affirmed. ITO be reported) :