Court Opinion

ID: 9300478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:06:55.866862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:39.982897
License: Public Domain

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice
(charging jury). In the execution of a writ of habere facias possessionem, there are several acts to be performed, which may all be done within a short space of time; but must necessarily be done in succession. If an adverse possession be held, the officer is first to turn out the occupant, then to take possession in the name of the law, and after-wards to deliver it to the plaintiff in ejectment. The offence, which consists in opposing or obstructing the execution of the writ, is complete, when the person in possession refuses, and by threats of violence, which it is in his power to enforce, prevents the officer from dispossessing him. It is nothing to the person, thus obstructing the execution of the process at the threshold, how far it is in his power immediately to deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiff, in the writ. If, then, the jury are satisfied that such obstruction took place in this case, they must find for the plaintiff.
In the second case, THE COURT said: It is said, that a mere threat to resist the execution of a writ, is not an offence against the act of congress. This is true; but if, when the officer having the writ, proceeds to the land, and is about to execute it, such a threat is made by a person retaining the possession, accompanied by the exercise of force, or having the capacity to exercise it, in consequence of which the officer cannot do his duty; it cannot be seriously contended, that the execution of the process has not been opposed or obstructed; and this is the offence charged, which you are to decide upon. The officer is not obliged to risk his life, or expose himself to personal violence; it is enough that he is prevented, by the exercise of force, or the threat of force, by one in a condition to execute it. from proceeding in the lawful exercise of his functions. It is not necessary for him to proceed to the length of a personal conflict with the defendant, for that would constitute a distinct of-fence in the defendant, even though the officer should succeed. In this case, the defendant retained, by force, the possession of the house, and threatened to take the life of the officer, if he should attempt to execute the writ; in consequence of which he was prevented from doing it. Should this be your opinion of the evidence, your verdict must be against the defendant.
The jury, in each case, found the defendant guilty.