Case Name: M'Intyre against Trumbull
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1810-11
Citations: 7 Johns. 35
Docket Number: 
Parties: M'Intyre against Trumbull.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
M'Intyre against Trumbull.
NEW-YORK,
Nov.1810.
An action lies forthSe¿tSof hb dePuty taking more tees, on levying an execution, than are allowed by law; the sheriff re. of his deputy^not be
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
Trumbull sued M'Intyre before a justice. The plaintiff declared that Stebbins, the under-sheriff of M'Intyre, had taken more fees of the plaintiff, for collecting money ° J On an execution, than he was by law entitled to, &c. The defendant pleaded the general issue. The. cause was tried by a jury. Two witnesses were sworn for the plaintiff. Verdict for the plaintiff, for 10 dollars and 69 cents.
Sedgwick, for the plaintiff in error.
Cady, contra, cited 6 Bac. Abr. 156. Doug. 40. 3 Wils. 399. 2 Term Rep. 148.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There is nothing appearing upon the return of the justice, to enable the court to examine the merits of this case: and the only question is, whether . ^ , ' , ' any case, an action will lie against a sheriff for the act of his deputy,' in taking or extorting more fees on execution than are allowed by law. On this point the law is too well settled to be now questioned. The sheriff is answerable civiliter, for the acts of his deputies; and it is no objection, that the act is of a criminal nature, for which the deputy might be answerable criminaliter. Whether it was shown that the sheriff had recognised the act of his deputy, does not appear. If such "recoge nition was necessary to be shown, we are to presume it was done in this case ; but the better opinion is, that it was not necessary. (Sanderson v. Baker, 2 Black. Rep. 832. Ackworth v. Kempe, Doug. 40. Woodgate v. Knatchbull, 2 Term Rep. 148.)
Judgment affirmed.