Nili. Sty. 353. Mich. 1652. Bond v. Martin. murs> an d
held a good
Demurrer; for he ought to have pleaded Nen D.innnf.r.tns, and not generally that he has faved him
harmlefs, for that he may do in many Thing, and yet the Plaintiii may be damnified in fome other
Things, wherein he was alfo bound to fave him harmlefs. The Rule was to fhc»v the Caufe why
Judgment Ihould not be given for the Plaintiff. Sty. 16 Fafeh 15 Car. W rpath v. Elleye.
2. Sheriff brought Debt on Bond conditienci for Payment of 120/. with- Comb. 245.
out faying more. The Defendant pleads, That it was /< 1 and Jfa- s
vour; Plaintiii' replies, That it was that Defendant ihould remain a true 1
Prifoner, and traverfes the Eafe &c. Defendant demurs, and Judgment.
for the bet- >vas given for Dciendant ; Becaufe Plaintiff, of his own fhewine, had
terfecuring ni . u j e tne Eond void at Common Laws it appearing upon Over "of the
to hirafclf Condition, that it was made lor the Payment 01 a certain Sum ot Mo-
andtravciTcd ney ; and yet in the Inducement to the Traverfe in his Replication he
the Eafe &c alleg'd, that it was made for the Sheriff's Security, that R. the Prifoner
and Dctcn- mou [d not e fcapc. Now this is an Averment againft the Condition of the
nfufrd" p er Bond to which an Obligee pall never be admitted; belides it is not law-
Cur. Itisan ful for the Plaintiff to take an ablblute Bond, with a Condition to pay
Money under Pretence ol Securitv againft Efcapes, w ithout mentioning-
• but it. Carth. 300, 301. Pafch. 6 \\ . 3. B. R. Foden v. Haines.
fubftantial P;rt of the Pica, but only Matter of Form ; and if we cad awav the Inducement the Tra-
verfe is well; hut here you confound the Caufe of Action in this Inducement, but you fliould have
laid that it wis Pro bono 6c vero Debito, and then traveried the Eafe and Favour.
(W) Attachments againft him, In what Cafes, and
to whom directed.
Br Reple- i. f g ">HE Sheriff' upon Replevin did nothing at tire Alias , or at the Plu-
v . in ' $'2; X w«j < ir >d Procefs ilfued to the Coroners to attach the Sheriff
cites . c. anc j to ma j ie R e pi e ^ nj Quod Nota; and the Coroners returned, Thac
they had attached the Sheriff, and he did not come, by which iffhed Dijlrtfs,
Quod Nota ; Procefs ol the Contempt. Br. Contempt, pi. i. cites 43
E. 3 26.
2. Judgment was given againft one in B. R. Capias iffued to the late
Sheriff to take ccc. the Party paid the Fee lor the Execution, and the
Sheriff received the Writ of the Plaintiff, and h&Jhewed the Defendant to
the Sheriff, and he viewed him, but he turned about and [aid, I cannot fee
him, and after returned a Nan eft inventus ; the Party made an Affidavit
ot this Matter, and prayed an Attachment againft the late Sheriff Jones
J. faid, he is now no Officer ; to which it was faid,That this was a Con-
tempt during his Office; and Doderidge and Jones J. granted an Attach-
ment. Lat. 176. Hill. 2 Car. Anon.
3. If Sheriff of a Comity in a City be in Contempt, the Attachment is to
go to the Coroner, and not to the Mayor or Chiet Officer of the Corpo-
ration in fuch City or Town. And if the Offender be out of his Of-
fice, the Attachment fhall be dirccled to the New Sheriff 2 Vent 216
Mich. 2 W. & M. C. B. Anon.
4. An Under-Sheriff returned a Fieri Feci, and ^Venditioni Exponas was
fued out; after two or three Rules upon the Sheriff to make a Return, and.
Failure therein, an Attachment was granted againft him, the Court de-
claring they never would grant it againlt the High Sheriff for not return-
ing the Writ. And fuch a Rule was made the fame Term in the like
Cafe againft the Under-Sheriff of York. 12 Mod. 454. Pafch. 13 Yv". 3.
B. R. Kilderton v. Wilkenfon.
5. The Sheriff made a Return of a Ccpi Corpus, but would not bring in
the Body: Upon which the Plaintiff' had obtained fever al Rules upon the
Sheriff to bring in the Body; But the Sheriff Jltll flood out in Contempt,
and therefore the Plaintiff prayed now an Attachment againft him. But
the Court upon hearing the Rules read, faid, There was not one pe-
remptory Rule, and therefore the Motion for an Attachment was irre-
gular at prefent. However, upon Counfel's deliring then a peremptory-
Rule, the Court granted it. And in another Cafe they faid, That A-
mercements only ufed to be the Method of inforcing thefe Rules, but
lately they have granted Attachments, i Barnard. Rep. in B. R. 246.
Mich. 3 Geo. 2. 1729. Smith v. Norton.
(X) AB'ions agahijl him. Trefpafs, or Cafe, or Debt.
I. y^vEKT ; at the Diftrefs the Sheriff dijlrains J. B. where the Name
J_^J of the Defendant in the Writ is T. B. there J. B. fhall have his
Remedy againft the Sheriff; and it feems by General Action or Trefpafs.
Er. Trcipab, pi. 135. cites 19 H. 6. 80.
2. But where hejerves the Writ truly, and imbezils it, vr makes a falfe
Return, it Teems that Action upon the Cafe lies. But contrary oiAtiual
fort, ut fupra. Br. Trefpafs, pi. 135. cites 19 H. 6. 80.
3. Debt does not lie ag.unlt a Sheriff upon an Efcape upon mefne Procefs,
but an Action on the Cafe only. 1 Vent. 7. Hill. 20 & 21 Car. 2. B.
(Y) Aclions by him, in RefpsQ: of his Oinee.
"iHE Sheriff levied Goods by a Fieri Facias, and before Execution
done by Sale, the Defendant took them again; the Sheriff' brought
frefpt'Cs. The Queftion was, Whether it lay for the Sheriff, becaufe
he had no Propercy in the Goods. Fenner only being in Court faid, He
had conferr'ri with Anderfon Ch. J. and Periam, who held clearly that
the Action did lie. Cro. E. 639. pi. 39. Mich. 40 & 41 Eliz.. B. R. Tyr-
rel v. Bcitn. . . r
2. So the Sheriff feifed Goods by Virtue of a Fieri Facias, and the £ev. *»».
lvne Rainsford andMoreton, Tiseiitante Twifden, gave Judgment for Sheriff in
tor the Plaintiff. Vent. 52 & j 3 . Hill 21 & 22 Car. 2. B. R. Wilbra- Jg,^.
ham V. Snow. ' tain Tref-
pafs, but not
Trover the whole Court held e contra, and that the Sheriff had Property fufficient to maintain this
A£tion,and Judgment accordingly; andKeelingCh. J. faid, That the Property is altered from the Owner,
and given to the Party, at whofe Suit; the Reporter adds, Qasre de ceo. Sid. 4^8. pi. 5. S C. adjudg-
ed accordingly, ai d fiid, That the Sheriff has fuch Property, that if he lofes the Goods h; (hall aniwer
f or t hem. " z Saund. 4-. S. C adjudged accordingly, Nifi &c. and fays, it was not moved afterwards.
— -Mod. 30 pi. ; 5. S. G. but not adjudged.
(Z) Pleadhtgs by him, and Bailiff
1. 1 a ' Refpafs of Goods taken, the Defendant faid that he is Sheriff
J^ of C. and that Exigent of Felony iffued againfi the Plaintiff] by
which he took the Goods. Ic was objected that he had not counted of
them ; But per Keble, That it is no Matter to you but to the King,
and he lhall account to the King alter. Br. Trefpafs, pi. 267. cites 3
H. 7- 3-
Hob. 206. pi. 2 . A Levari facias ifTued upon a Recognizance in Chancery for 2000 /.
260 h -( "i t ' ie ^ ner 'h l return'd that he had levied 500 /. towards Satisfaction of the
accor Hutton HaintifPs Debt, and that he had Denarws paratos &c. but becaufe he
11, 12. S C. did not pay it in, the Plaintiff brought Aftion of Debt againit, him. The
accordingly. Defendant, as to 300 /. Part, pleaded Nil debet, and as to 200 /. that be-