Case Name: Smith v. Trawl
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1790-01
Citations: 1 Root 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: Smith v. Trawl.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 165–168

Head Matter:
Smith v. Trawl.
Error to reverse a judgment of the County Court, in an action Trawl v. Smith, declaring that one Jehiel Sexton was indebted to 1dm. £8 15s. by note; that to secure said debt, he caused a certain horse of said Sexton’s to be attached of more value than said debt, by writ, dated and returnable before Justice Wilcox, to be answered on the 29th of January, A. D. 1787; that said horse was accordingly attached and taken into the custody of the law. That said Sexton applied to the defendant, he being a justice of the peace, for a writ of replevin to replevy said home, which said justice granted, and took said Sexton’s bond only upon said writ; that said Sexton at that time was a bankrupt, known to have but little or no property besides said horse; by virtue of which replevin said horse was taken out of the custody of the law and returned to said Sexton; that the plaintiff recovered judgment on said writ of attachment on said 29th day of January, A. D. 1787, before Justice Wilcox, for the sum of £1 1,5s., lawful money, damages, and thirteen shillings six pence for cost, for which he had execution and delivered it to an officer, who collected thereon fifteen shillings only, and for the residue returned said execution non est inventus; and said Sexton hath no estate and hath absconded; that his bond aforesaid was no security on said replevin, and by means of the wrong-doings of the defendant aforesaid he has lost his said debt to his damage £
Demurrer to the declaration — Judgment that the declaration was sufficient, and that the plaintiff recover.
Errors assigned —- That said declaration was insufficient; for the law had made the justice the judge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the security to be taken, and of this he judged, and for an error in judgment he was not liable.
Judgment —■ Manifest error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The question in this case is, whether the plaintiff's bond, upon a replevin, in any ease, let him be ever so responsible, can be considered as good and sufficient security, within the letter and meaning of the law. 2d. Whether, as the statute is worded, and the practice hath been, the justice is guilty of a- malfeasance, for which he is liable in damages; or only as having committed an error in judgment.
The statute respecting attachments is, that the plaintiff, on praying out an attachment against the goods and the estate of the debtor, shall give sufficient security to prosecute. The parties' bond is constantly taken in these cases, and if the security is insufficient, an objection made to the court, to whom the writ is returned, will order a new bond to be given. The attachment takes the property from the defendant into the custody of the law, for the purpose of responding the judgment which shall be recovered; or to return it in safety to the debtor.
On praying out a replevin the law is, that the plaintiff shall give good and sufficient security to prosecute his replevin, etc. This writ is to take the property out of the custody of the law, and return it to the owner; it is to relieve a defendant against any injury he might sustain, by having his property detained from him; the bond is deposited in the place of the property, to respond the judgment. Now as the statute doth not explicitly require that it shall be a bond with surety, but only that it shall be good and sufficient security, if the justice judged that the plaintiff's bond was good and sufficient security, although, it in fact was not, and although it is not what the statute meant, in this case, by good and sufficient security, still it is but an error in judgment, for which he is not liable, unless it appeared, that he acted corruptly; and in this case it doth not appear that he did.