State ex rel. Owen v. Marshall
State ex rel. Owen v. Marshall
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Interpreting the fourth plea as averring that the writ of attachment, for the. failure to levy which this action is brought, was against the corporation, Gtattman & Co., and that the homesteads were the property of the individuals, it is a bar to the action, and the replication is not an answer to it, for the liability of the officer is determinable, not by what may have resulted from the chancery suit, but by the legal aspect presented by the case with -which he had to deal at the time when it is alleged that he incurred liability; and it is clear that process against a corporation cannot be legally served on individual property of natural persons composing it. As the fourth plea bars the action, it is useless to say more.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- State, use of Amanda Owen v. J. H. Marshall
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Sheriff. Refusal to levy attachment. Liability on bond. A sheriff holding an attachment-writ against a corporation may refuse the demand of plaintiff to levy it on the property of the individuals who compose it and manage its affairs, and, by such refusal, he does not incur liability to the plaintiff. 2. Same. Duty of sheriff holding process. The liability of the sheriff, under such circumstances, is determined by the legal aspects of the case at the time of his alleged omission of duty, and this cannot be affected by showing that, if the levy had beén made, the property might haye been thereafter subjected in a chancery proceeding to the demand of plaintiff.