Court Opinion

ID: 8055261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 04:32:08.051395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:37:49.651134
License: Public Domain

Pennington, J.
The action below, was brought by Joseph Parker, against Elias Parker, for neglect of duty in not collecting the money on an execution put into his hands while a constable. The objection to the proceedings below is, that the state of demand does not set out a cause of ac.. tion. The state of demand is a certificate of one Richard *635Higbce, that Joseph Parker obtained a judgment before him against Uriah Ackley, in June, 1802; that the debt, interest, and costs amounted to 845 89, particularizing each; and that execution was granted thereon. Under this certificate, are the following words: This is Joseph Parker’s demand against Elias Parkex*. This state of demand is wholly insufficient. It does not even state that the execution was put into the hands of Elias [*] Parker, not that he was a constable, nor the time it Was issued, or whether or not the money was collected; nor any one circumstance to shew the liability of Elias Parker to an action. I am, therefore, for a reversal.
Davenport, for plaintiff.
Kirkpatrick, C. J. and Rossbbb, J. — Concurred.
Judgment reversed.