Guiterman Brothers v. Sharvey
| Decision Date | 12 May 1891 |
| Citation | 48 N.W. 780,46 Minn. 183 |
| Parties | Guiterman Brothers v. Paul Sharvey, Sheriff |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of Duluth refusing a new trial after a trial by the court and judgment of $ 83.40 ordered in favor of plaintiffs, who are partners suing by their firm name, their individual names nowhere appearing in the return.
Order affirmed.
McGindley & Cotton, for appellant.
Mahon & Howard, for respondents.
Action for damages caused by defendant's breach of official duty in negligently delaying to execute a writ of execution. The assignments of error, although several in number, present the single question whether the evidence justified the findings of fact. The findings are, of course, conclusive in favor of plaintiffs as to all facts upon which there was a fair conflict of evidence. On December 16th, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, in Duluth, the plaintiffs, by their attorney, delivered to defendant, sheriff of St. Louis county, an execution against the property of one Crawford. At this time Crawford owned a small stock of goods (sufficient to satisfy the execution) situated in a store in West Duluth. There was regular railway service, as well as a public highway, between Duluth and West Duluth, -- which are only 4 1/2 or 5 miles apart, -- by either of which defendant could have reached West Duluth and levied on these goods the same afternoon. When plaintiff's attorney delivered the execution to defendant, he informed him where the goods were upon which he desired a levy to be made, and also told him that it was very important that the levy be made that afternoon; that he did not want it postponed until next day, but wanted it made at once, as he was satisfied that Crawford would make an assignment very soon, in fact that he was almost certain that the papers for an assignment were being then prepared; also that if he (the sheriff) was too busy to attend to it, to let him know so that he might get another officer to serve the execution. The defendant took the writ, saying he would attend to it if he had to go himself that night. The defendant, being engaged in other official duties, gave the execution to one of his deputies, who started to go out by railway that afternoon; but finding that the train which he intended to take had, by reason of a recent change in the time-table, already gone, he deferred going until...
To continue reading
Request your trial