Case Name: Stevenson vs. Ridgely
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1811-12
Citations: 3 H. & J. 281
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stevenson vs. Ridgely.
Judges: The cause Was argued before Buchanan, Earle and Johnson, J. by
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 3
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
Stevenson vs. Ridgely.
AppfeAt from Baltimore County Court. The plaintiff in the court below, {now appellant,) brought an action of replevin against the defendant, (the appellee,) for 13 hogsheads of tobacco. The defendant pleaded property; and at the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence, that he was the inspector of a public tobacco warehouse established at Fell’s Point in Baltimore county, and that while acting in that capacity twelve hogsheads of tobacco were deposited at that warehouse, for which, after being inspected, twelve several notes were issued by him to the persons who lodged the said tobacco, as appeared by the notes produced in court by the plaintiff. He further gave evidence, that the holders of the said notes presented them to him while he Was inspector, and demanded a delivery of the tobacco mentioned in them; that he then delivered to said holders by mistake, other tobacco than that mentioned in the hotes, and which were accepted by them ih mistake, without any objection on their parts; that the tobacco so delivered was different from that they were entitled to receive; and upon the delivery of the said tobacco the said notes were delivered up to him as inspector; that he was afterwards, and some time before the institution of this suit, removed from his office of inspector, and the present defendant appointed to succeed him; that the said twelve hogsheads of tobacco, for which the said notes were issued, were advertised for sale by the defendant as inspector, under the act of assembly of 1802, ch. 27; and that no demand was made for the said tobacco by the plaintiff) until after the publications of the said advertisement. The defendant then prayed the court to direct the jury, that on these facts the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. And the court, ['Nicholson, Ch. J.] did accordingly so direct the jury, being of opinion, that the surrender oí the tobacco notes to the inspector, as such, for the purpose of having the tobacco delivered to the respective holders, transferred no property in the tobacco to the inspector, although other tobacco than that due on the notes Was delivered to them, and that to sanction such practices would be to open a door to the most abominable frauds, which might be committed by inspectors upon the several counties in which they reside; that it was the duty of every public officer to act correctly in the discharge of his functions, and if lió acted incorrectly, even by mistake, he could not avail hiiiiself of his o\vii negligence to his own benefit, arid to the injury of a third party The plaintiff' excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
A former ihspe<t¿ for of tobacco by-mistake delivered to the holders of certain notes* other hogsheads of tobacco than those mentioned in such Doth*. The hogsheads correspond* in# with the notes were by that inspector deliver'd over to Ins successor, and on his, (die successors) advertising them ihr sale nr dev the act ot 1802, ch, 27e $. 4f they were tie* raanded by the former inspector, and he brought an action of' replevin for them — HcW, that he was no* entitled to covef*
The cause Was argued before Buchanan, Earle and Johnson, J. by
Marlin and Winder, for the Appellant;
and by
T. B. Dorsey, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT AITIRJÍEDa