Case Name: William Bowrell v. Samuel Zigler
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1850-12
Citations: 19 Ohio St. 2d 362
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Bowrell v. Samuel Zigler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 19
Pages: 362–367

Head Matter:
William Bowrell v. Samuel Zigler.
A judgment of an inferior court cannot be reversed on error, for any erroi committed by the court in its proceedings, after the rendition of the judgment.
The imprisonment of a judgment debtor upon execution, operates as a satisfaction so long as the imprisonment continues, or if he is discharged from such imprisonment with the assent of the creditor; but if the debtor escape or is discharged without the assent of the creditor, it is not a satisfaction.
This is a -writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler county.
The transcript of proceedings, or copy of record from the ■court of common pleas, shows that a certiorari was issued from that court to John Morse, a justice of the peace, commanding him to certify into that court a copy of proceedings lately had before him, in a case in which Samuel Zigler was plaintiff, and William Bowrell was defendant.
In observance to this writ the justice certified to the court a transcript, of which the following is a copy:
Samuel Zigler I sujt bought on a due bill of which the Wiffiam*'Bowrell. j Mowing is a copy.
One day after date I promise to pay unto Samuel Zigler, the full sum of seventy-five dollars, for value received of him, with six per cent, interest.
William Bowrell.
June 6th, 1848, defendant came forward and confessed that the note is just; therefore judgment was rendered for seventy-five dollars and costs of suit.
June 6th, execution issued and directed to constable William S. Hile. Execution returned by constable Hile indorsed, served this writ on defendant by reading, June 10th 1848, no property found whereon to levy, returned July 1.
William S. Hile, Constable.
Upon the oath of Samuel Zigler execution issued July 3d, 1848, execution issued and directed to William S. Hile, constable. Execution returned by constable indorsed, July 3d, within named William Bowrell hath. not sufficient goods and chattels whereof to make the amount of this execution, and for want thereof I took his body and tendered the same at the jail of Butler county, to the person in charge thereof, who said he was authorized by the jailor to receive and confine persons, who refused to receive the same until he should be paid a fee of $3, and there being no one present on behalf of the plaintiff'to pay the same, after having waited a reasonable time, I left the prisoner at large.
William S. Hile, Constable.
Issued upon the oath of Samuel Zigler, John Brown, and James C. Beatty, execution.
July 10th, 1848. Satisfaciendum issued and directed to constable William S. Hile.
Satisfaciendum returned by constable Hile indorsed July 10th, 1848, no property found whereon to levy, and for want thereof, according to the command of this writ I have committed the within named defendant William Bowrell, to the jail of Butler county.
September 5th, 1848. Execution issued and directed to constable Hile. September 8th,'1848, the said William Bowrell, by his attorney, came and moved the court to quash this writ of execution, in this case issued on the 10th day of July, 1848, and on the 5th day of September, 1848, for the following reasons, to wit:
1. Because said first mentioned writ was issued without the proper affidavit and evidence.
2. Because said first mentioned writ was issued after the judgment in this ease had been satisfied by the arrest of the said Bowrell’s body, and release of the same by the constable of said township, as shown in his return against the writ issued July 3d, 1848.
3. Because said second writ was issued after the satisfaction of this judgment, as in the aforesaid second cause mentioned.
4. Because both of said writs have been issued against the goods, chattels, property, and body of said Bowrell, after he was fully discharged from said debt, secured by said judgment.
September 8th, 1848. And this motion having been fully considered by me, it is overruled.
Execution returned by constable Hile, indorsed,’ September-7th 1848, served on defendant by reading, levied on one lot of oats in the stack, one fanning mill, etc.
October 3d, 1818. Returned, proceedings overruled by the court.
William S. Hile,. Constable.
The proceedings stayed by the court of common pleas, until February term, 1849.
I do hereby certify that the above is a true copy taken from my docket, this 22d day of January, 1849.
John Morse, J. P.
Upon the return of the transcript, Bowrell, at whose in stance the certiorari was issued, assigned the following errors:
1. “ Said writ of capias issued July 10th, 1848, and said execution issued September 5th, 1848, were issued after the-judgment in this case was satisfied, by the imprisonment and discharge of said Bowrell’s body, on the writ of July 3d, 1848, as shown in the return of the writ of said constable.”
2. “ Said justice erred in overruling the motion of defendant’s counsel, to quash said writ.”
3. “ Neither of the writs aforesaid was legally issued, the. first having been issued without the proper afiidavit and evidence, and the second having been issued while the defendant was in custody on the first.”
At the September term, 1849, the case was heard in the court of common pleas, and the judgment and proceedings before the justice were in all things affirmed, and that court ordered exe cution to be issued for the amount of said judgment and costs.
To reverse the judgment of the court of common pleas this writ is prosecuted.
Richardson and Brown, for plaintiff in error.
Ryan and Milliken, for defendant.

Opinion:
Hitchcock, C. J.
This case, so far as my experience is concerned, is somewhat novel in its character. The record shows that a judgment was rendered, by a justice of the peace, in favor of the defendant in certiorari, against the plaintiff, on the 6th June, 1848, and this judgment was rendered on con fession. There is no complaint that this judgment was erroneous, but still it is now sought to reverse it, because, as is claimed, the justice refused to quash certain executions subsequently issued upon it, and enter satisfaction upon the judgment. The errors assigned, are all alleged to have intervened subsequent to the judgment. Eor such error the judgment itself cannot be impeached.
It is, to say the least of it, extremely doubtful whether this plaintiff, admitting that he has been injured as alleged, could have redress by certiorari. The use of this writ in removing cases from a justice of the peace to the court of common pleas, is regulated by statute, and seems to be intended for those cases alone, where there is error in the proceedings and rendition of the judgment. It is used to remove cases from a justice's court to the court of common pleas, in the same manner that a writ of error is used for removing cases from the court of common pleas to this court. The 61st section of the justice act, provides that if the judgment be affirmed, the case may be remanded to the justice for execution, " or such court," that is, .the court' of common pleas, " may award execution, to carry into effect the judgment of such justice, in the same manner as if said judgment had been rendered in the court of common pleas. And the 62d section provides that if the judgment of the justice is reversed, " the cause shall be retained for trial and final judgment, as in cases of appeal." (Swan's Stat. 616.)
But aside from these considerations, what are the pretended grounds of complaint ? The record shows that the judgment was rendered on the 6th day of June, 1848. On the same day execution was issued, and on the 10th day of the month returned not satisfied.
On the 3d of July, 1848, upon the oath of Zigler, the creditor, another execution was issued and delivered to the constable, and was by him returned the same day, indorsed by the constable that the debtor had not sufficient goods and chattels ; that for want thereof he " took his body and tendered the same at the jail of Butler county, to the person in charge thereof, who said he was authorized by the jailor to receive and confine persons, who refused to receive the same until he should be paid a fee of three dollars, and there being no one present, on behalf of the plaintiff, to pay the same, after waiting a reasonable time," he left the prisoner at large.
Now the question arises, was this such an imprisonment of the debtor as in law satisfies the debt. This is the principal point in controversy between these parties. We suppose where a creditor causes his debtor to be imprisoned on execution, while the imprisonment continues, it is a satisfaction. Or if the debtor is discharged with the assent of the creditor, it will operate as a satisfaction. But if the debtor escapes, or if he is discharged without the assent of the creditor, there is no satisfaction. In the case now under consideration, there was no assent on the part of the creditor. The constable having the debtor in custody, upon the refusal of the jailor to receive him into the jail, permitted him to go at large. He was never committed to prison. It was an escape.
If we are correct in this, it disposes of the case as to all the objections raised except this one, that the execution oi the 10th of July, was issued without any sufficient affidavit. Whether it were so or not the court of common pleas could not know, nor can this court know, from any thing apparent upon the record. It was an objection made by the attorney of the judgment debtor. The objection. was overruled by the justice. Upon this point there must have been evidence. The affidavit of the party and of the witnesses, must have been before the justice. Upon the evidence before the justice he must have decided. But no part of this evidence,was introduced into the transcript. No part of it was before the court of common pleas, nor is it before this court. How then could the court of common pleas say, or how can this court say, that the justice erred in the decision by. him made ?
Upon examination of the whole case, we cannot discover any error in the action of the court of common pleas, and the judgment of that court is affirmed with costs.