Wells v. Rawlings
Wells v. Rawlings
Opinion of the Court
This was an action of debt for the escape of one Thomas Miranda arrested by the defendant, who *was the sheriff of the county of Scott, on a ca. sa., at the suit of the plaintiff. The declaration was in the usual form. The defendant pleaded three pleas. The
The'only question in the case is as to the sufficiency of the third plea.
The defendant having arrested Miranda, was bound to keep him safely until discharged by due course of law. One of the modes by which a debter arrested on a ca. sa. may be legally discharged, is pointed out in the statute on which the defendant relies.
The statute makes it the duty of the sheriff or other officer making the arrest, to give notice to the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney, of the time and place of taking the oath, and of the person before whom the oath is intended to be taken. If neither the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney reside in the county, “ such notice” shall be posted up in the clerk’s office.
The plea is defective, because it does not show that the notice required by the statute was given by the defendant. The plea avers that the plaintiff in execution was not a resident of the county, and that notice of the time and place of taking the oath was posted up in the clerk’s office. The plaintiff, though he did not reside in the county, may have had an agent or attorney residing there. If he had, the
The statute referred to provides for the discharge of a debtor by a short and summary proceeding, and to guard against fraud, it is necessary that all its requirements be observed.
The Court erred in overruling the demurrer to the plea.
Per Curiam.—The judgment is reversed and the proceedings subsequent to the demurrer set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Reference
- Status
- Published