Case Name: Edward C. De Bruhl v. Wm. Parker
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1810-05
Citations: 2 Brev. 406
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward C. De Bruhl v. Wm. Parker.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
MAY, 1810.
Edward C. De Bruhl v. Wm. Parker.
Trespasses are either joint, or several, at the option of the plaintiff. Goods were left locked up in a house which the plaintiff had taken possession of as lessee. In the plaintiff’s absence from the house, there being no person left therein, the defendant, with a constable and others, broke open the house, and took the plaintiff’s goods in execution. This was held to be a tortious taking by the defendant, although he did not touch the goods himself. But he was present, directing the constable. The owner of the goods, although at a distance, was considered to be, in construction of law, m the' actual possession thereof.
Motion to set aside a nonsuit. Action ■ of trespass vi et armis, for taking away and disposing of the plaintiff’s goods, brought to trial before Bay, J., in Kershaw district. It appeared in evidence, that plaintiff had left his house in Camden, where he lived, being a house he had rented from a third person, with the goods therein, locked up, while he went into the country. The defendant went with Mr. Barrillon, a town constable, witli a warrant, to take and sell the plaintiff’s goods for a debt due the defendant. The defendant had the plaintiff’s house broke open, and took the goods} which were sold by the constable, under his directions.
On motion for a nonsuit, it was ordered on the following grounds: 1. Because plaintiff' had proved no possession in himself, of the goods, at the time the trespass was committed. 2. Because the defendant not having, himself, laid hands on the goods, could not be considered as a trespasser.
The judge thought the action would lie against the constable only, who took and sold the goods.
The case was submitted without argument, by Blanding, for the plaintiff, and Mathis, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
Grimke, J.,
delivered the opinion 2d May, 1810. The plaintiff' was in the legal constructive possession of his goods, although at a distance, at the time of the violent taking of them from his house, no other person having actual possession of them. It has not appeared that the defendant was justifiable in taking .them, or any of those by whom they were taken. The taking by the constable has not been justified; of course the same must be considered as unlawful, and tortious ; and all who were present at such taking, aiding, abetting, or even consenting thereto, are to be regarded as equally wrong doers; and as all trespasses are several, as well as joint, the plaintiff was entitled to bring his action against either, or all the trespassers, at his option.
New trial granted.