Court Opinion

ID: 9866308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 03:35:08.581831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:19:53.445314
License: Public Domain

“ ‘GRAVES, C. J.
I concur in the result only of the learned commissioner’s opinion in this case. To my mind the case of State ex rel. v. O’Neil Lumber Company et al., 170 Mo. 7, 70 S. W. 121, settles the question as to which law is applicable. The effect of that ruling is that the sheriff is governed by the prior special law, *262and not by the later general law. The commissioner rules contra. To this ruling I do not agree in view of the O’Neil Lumber Company case, supra.
“ ‘However, I do agree to the reversal of the judgment, and the remanding of the cause, as called for by the opinion. My reasons therefor are different from those specified by the commissioner. The record shows the utmost good faith of the sheriff in the handling of the execution. It fails- to show any negligence or willful misconduct. It shows an earnest effort to try to follow the law, as he was advised upon that subject. Under such state of facts, I do not think that he can be held for more than the real value of the stock levied upon by him.. If this stock was worth at the time of levy the amount of the execution, the sheriff would be liable for the amount of such execution, but on the other hand, if it was not worth such amount, the sheriff should not be held for more than the actual value at the date of the levy. These views would call for the reversal of the judgment and a remanding of the cause, which is the result reached by the commissioner’s opinion. For these reasons I concur in the result only of that opinion. Faris, J., concurs in these views.’
“It will be thus seen that three members of the court, viz., Williams, Woodson and Blair, JJ., concurred fully in the commissioner’s opinion; Walker and Bond, JJ., dissented in toto; while Graves, C. J., and Paris, J., concurred for the reasons set forth in the concurring opinion of the former. Now, as said, of the two vital questions which had been up.for consideration by this court in the case, the commissioner’s opinion disposes of but one. And the view of the commissioner that the Sheriff’s and Marshal’s Act had been, partially at least, superseded by the general law, was not concurred in by a majority of the members of the Supreme Court, but on the contrary was concurred in by but three members of that court. To that proposition Walker and Bond, JJ., dissented, since they dissented in toto; and to that proposition Graves, C. J., and Fáris, *263J., expressly dissented. Consequently we are bound to conclude that a majority of the members of the Supreme Court judicially determined that the Sheriff’s and Marshal’s Act was and is still in full force and effect in the City of St. Louis. And from this it follows that this third-party claim was not valid, and afforded the sheriff no lawful ground for refusing to sell.
“The other question discussed and passed upon by this court in the case, i. e., the amount of damages recoverable, was not in any manner disposed of by the commissioner. It is not directly dealt with except in the concurring opinion of Graves, C. J., concurred in only by Paris, J., wherein it is held that since the defendant sheriff acted in good faith, in an earnest effort to follow the law as he was advised by counsel upon that subject, he can be held liable for no more than the real value of the stock levied upon by him. This rule would indeed be a just one when applied to the facts of this case. But we previously felt compelled to hold to the contrary, nor do we see any escape from the conclusion that it is our duty now to so hold. The statute in question (Sec. 2240, R. S. 1909) provides as follows:
“ ‘If any officer to whom any execution shall be delivered shall refuse or neglect to execute or levy the same according to law, or shall take in execution any property, or any property be delivered to him by any person against whom an execution is issued, and he shall neglect or refuse to make sale of. the property so taken or delivered, according to law, or shall make a false return of such writ, then, in any of the cases aforesaid, said officer shall be liable. and bound to pay the whole amount of money in such writ specified, or thereon indorsed and directed to be levied.’
“And, as pointed out by us in our former opinion herein, it has been heretofore consistently ruled that for a neglect of duty in any of the instances mentioned, the sheriff is liable for the full amount of the execution, debt.
*264“In view of the language of the statute and the express prior rulings of the Supreme Court last above mentioned, it is our clear duty to hold that the defendant is liable for the full amount of the execution debt, unless it can be said that in- this very case, upon certification, the Supreme Court has held to the contrary, But we regard it as entirely clear that such was not the ruling of a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court; but, on the contrary, that what is said as to this in the opinion of Graves, C. J., concurred in by Faris, J., is but an expression of the individual views of those two members of that court. . Obviously such view was not concurred in by any of the other members of the court. And while we have a very high regard for the views of these two judges, we are. unable to follow them, for the reason that it is our express duty, under the Constitution, to follow the last controlling decision of the Supreme Court.
“Upon the last trial of this case in the circuit court the court, while holding that the third-party claim ‘did not comply with the requirements of the statute applicable hereto,’ took the view expressed by Judge Graves in his concurring opinion, supra, and, at the instance of defendant, gave the following declaration of law:
“ ‘The court declares the law to be that if the court believes and finds from the evidence that the defendant Nolte, his deputies and his attorneys in so far as they had anything to do with the levy of the execution referred to in the evidence and the subsequent release of the shares of stock levied upon thereunder, acted in good faith and with a sincere desire to perform their duties as public officials, and that they were not negligent and not wilfully or intentionally disregardful of their duties, then the defendants are liable for only the actual amount of damage sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the failure of the sheriff to sell the shares of stock levied upon. ’
“And proceeding upon this theory the court proceeded to determine the damages which plaintiff had *265actually suffered by reason of the failure and refusal of tbe defendant sheriff to make the sale,- and found that plaintiff had suffered nominal damages only. In thus declaring the law, and predicating his finding thereupon, we must hold that the trial judge committed error.
“The other questions raised by appellant become immaterial.
“The judgment is consequently reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to the circuit court to enter judgment for plaintiff for the full amount of the execution debt, with interest and costs.”
Counsel for relators, or petitioners, charge that the foregoing opinion not only conflicts with previous named cases of this court, but conflicted with our own ruling in this same case when here upon certification by the St. Louis Court of Appeals. In the present opinion of the Court of Appeals the full opinion of Eoy, C., is not set out, but by direct reference it is made a part thereof. This gives us the full outline of the instant case.
Ruttagí
I. Going to the opinions of this court in the case of State ex rel. Poultry & Game Co. v. Nolte, 203 S. W. 956, we find the expressions of the judges of this court, on the two questions discussed by the Court of Appeals in the opinion now before us. These opinions consist of (1) the original opinion of Eoy. C., in Division Two, (2) the opinion of Eoy, C., in said Division Two on the motion for re-hearing, (3) the Per Ouriam opinion in Bane, and (4) the separate concurring opinion of Graves, C. J., and Paris, J., in Banc. The views of these four separate documents constitute the views of this court upon the two questions, if they were passed upon therein.
The first question wa's as to whether or not the “Sheriff’s and Marshal’s Act” of 1855 (Laws of 1854-5, p. 464) applied, or our present Section 2204, Eevised Statutes 1909, applied. This, on the theory that the third-party claim was good under the latter act, but not good under the former. Eoy, C., held that Section 2204 applied, and upon this question (Per curiam opinion in *266Banc) Woodson, Williams and Blair, JJ., concurred; Walker and Bond, JJ., dissented, and the separate concurring opinion of Graves, C. J., and Faris, J., shows that they refused to consent to that ruling, so that upon that question the present opinion of the Court of Appeals conforms to this last ruling of this court.
Sheriff’s11 Liability.
II. The opinion before us for review, says that as to the second proposition before them, i. e. that the mere failure of the officer to levy rendered him liable for the full amount of the execution, irrespective of the good faith of the officer, and irrespective of the am0'an't damages actually suffered by suela official'failure, this court made no ruling when the case was here upon former appeal, on the certification of the St. Louis Court of Appeals. In this wé think the Court of Appeals is in error. It is true that our views were divided and differently expressed, but when the proposition is considered, and the votes of the members of this court counted, it will be found that a majority voted that, where the officer acts in good faith in thé performance of his duty, then under Section 2240, he is liable only for the actual damages which occurred by his honest, but mistaken, judgment. In the opinion on motion for rehearing, Roy, C., said:
“This case was certified here because Reynolds, P. J., deemed the opinion of the Court of Appeals in conflict with Metzner v. Graham, 66 Mo. 653. Respondent says that the latter case was impliedly overruled by State ex rel. v. Case, 77 Mo. 247. In the first of those two cases this court, speaking of the liability of a sheriff for failure to properly execute a writ of attachment, said:
“ ‘It cannot be that mere technical breach of duty, or abstract remissness, unaccompanied by resulting injury, can form the basis for a substantial recovery, not at all proportionate to the actual damages sustained.’
“In that case, so far as appears, the officer acted in good faith and from error of judgment. In the latter one of those cases it was held that the sheriff is liable for a *267false return on an execution to the full amount of the execution debt. That is by no means an overuling of the Metzner Case, which still stands as good law. This case was properly certified here. ’ ’
To the above quoted views, Blair, Woodson and Williams, JJ., gave their consent. That Graves, C. J., and Faris,'J., expressed the same thought, in slightly different verbiage, in the separate concurring opinion, can not well be questioned. So that on the proposition urged by plaintiff in that case, i. e., that, under Section 2240, Revised Statutes 1909, there was an absolute liability upon the part of the officer for the amount of the execution, there were five votes of. this court against such view. It is clear that a majority of this court gave assent to the doctrine announced in the case of Metzner v. Graham, 66 Mo. 653.
The opinion of Rot, C., quoted supra, approved the doctrine of the Metzner case, and three judges here, Blair, Woodson and Williams, concurred. It is true that the opinion of Graves, C. J., and Faris, J.,.does not mention the Metzner case, but it does announce the identical rule, so that for such rule there were five votes. That doctrine did not permit a recovery of the full amount of the execution, irrespective of the good faith of the officer,. and irrespective of the actual damages. Where the officer acts in good faith, and uses his best judgment, and is not remiss in attempting to-faithfully perform his duties, he should not be held for more than the actual damages occasioned by his honest, but erroneous, judgment. The St. Louis Court of Appeals did not follow these views, in the opinion before us.
III. But even if there were doubt as to how this court ruled the question in State ex rel. v. Nolte, 203 S. W. l. c. 960, all that could be said is that only three judges expressly approved the Metzner case. No one voted to overrule1 it. The Metzner case would then be the last controlling opinion. This Metzner case was an action under Section 63, of 1 Wagner’s Statutes, page 614? which is now our Section 2240, Revised Statutes 1909, *268The outline of the petition in the Metzner case shows it to be an action under Section 63 of 1 Wagner’s Statutes, page 614. That case disapproved the doctrine that an officer was liable absolutely, under all circumstances,' for the face of the execution when he failed to sell property levied upon by him. It is the reasonable rule. It is the last expression (not counting our ruling in 203 S. W. supra) upon the question involved in this record. The opinion contravenes this case upon the doctrine of the officer’s liability. No officer, who in good" -faith undertakes to perform his duty, should be held liable for more than actual damages for his error of judgment. Judge Ferris of' the trial, bench was right in his conclusions on the case before him and before the Court of Appeals. It follows that the judgment of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, together with that portion of their opinion relating to the officer’s liability under Section 2240, Revised Statutes 1909, should be quashed. It is so ordered.
All concur except Woodson, J., absent.