Case Name: Thatcher v. Heacock & Benedict
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1791-08
Citations: 1 Root 284
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thatcher v. Heacock & Benedict.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Thatcher v. Heacock & Benedict.
Where a writ is directed to an indifferent person to serve, the law requires that the name and reasons should he inserted hy the authority signing — and where the direction is to the sheriff, etc. or an indifferent person, in the disjunctive^ it will abate.-
ONE of tbe defendants dwelt in New Haven county, tbe other in Litchfield county. Tbe writ was directed by the attorney who drew it and ini bis bandwriting, To tbe sheriff of tbe county of New Haven, bis deputy, etc. or to William Leavenswortb to serve, etc.
Plea in abatement — 1st. It appears said writ was served by. said Leavenswortb, and be bath not sworn to tbe service. 2d. That tbe name and direction to said Leavenswortb were neither of them inserted by tbe authority who signed said writ; but were inserted without bis knowledge^ by tbe attorney who drew said writ. 3d. Said writ is directed to tbe sheriff, bis deputy, etc. or to William Leavenswortb in tbe disjunctive. 4th. Said Leavenswortb is not called in tbe direction of said writ an indifferent person, nor does it appear that he is.
Reply — That tbe authority signing said writ saw and recognized tbe direction to said William Leavenswortb.
Judgment — That tbe plea in abatement is sufficient. Tbe statute is, that all writs shall be directed to tbe sheriff, bis deputy .or some constable, if to be bad, without great charge and inconvenience. And in every ease wherein tbe authority signing a writ shall find it necessary to direct tbe same to an indifferent person, such authority shall insert the name of such. indifferent person, in tbe direction of tbe writ, and tbe reason of such direction; and if any writ be otherwise directed it shall abate.

Opinion:
Tbe law is positive that tbe name of tbe indifferent person and tbe reason, shall be inserted in tbe direction of tbe writ by tbe authority who signs it, when be finds a proper officer cannot be bad, to do tbe service without great charge, etc. and of this the law has made him the judge; and his certificate, inserted in the direction of the writ, in his own handwriting is conclusive evidence of the fact. Kirby's Reports, 6, Lawrence v. Kingman.
2d. The direction; is to the sheriff, etc. or to William Leav-ensworth, in the disjunctive; which has left to the discretion of the plaintiff what the law has invested the authority signing the writ only with, the power of deciding. Had the direction been to the sheriff and to William Leavensworth it would have been well —• for at the time of signing it might be, that an officer was not to be had, but before serving one might be had, in such case the writ might be served by the officer.
As to the first exception, the law does not require that an indifferent person should make oath to the service; but if it did, it might be done after it is returned by leave of the court.
As to the fourth, exception, the direction is to William Leavensworth by name, which shows him not .to be an officer, but an indifferent person, in the sense of the law: If he is otherwise disqualified, by being connected with either of the parties, it was incumbent on the defendant to have pointed it out in his plea.