Snapp v. The Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 01 September 1845
• Citation: 2 Pa. 49
• Parties: SNAPP v. THE COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2 Pa. 49

SNAPP v. THE COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Union county.

Patterson and Deford, for plaintiff in error.—It was to show that at the time of the judgment before the magistrate the sureties were not liable, that we offered the evidence, and as such it was admissible. 17 Serg. & Rawle, 358; 8 Watts, 398.

Austin and Howell, contrà.

BURNSIDE, J., after stating the case.

The plaintiff below relied on the case of Musser et al. v. Strickland, where it was held that a judgment against a constable, for official misconduct, is conclusive against his surety, as to his misconduct, and the extent of damage sustained by the plaintiff; 17 Serg. & Rawle, 378; and in Evans v. The Commonwealth, 8 Watts, 398, where it was also held that in an action against the sureties of a constable, upon his official bond, to recover the amount of a judgment for which the constable became liable, the judgment previously obtained against the constable himself is conclusive evidence of the liability of the sureties. Regarding these cases as the settled law, the parties in this case stand upon very different principles. The cases referred to were upon scire facias issued against the constable, to whom the executions were directed, in pursuance of the 12th section of the Hundred Dollar Act, Purdon, 583, which provides that "on the delivery of an execution to any constable, an account shall be stated on the docket of the justice, from which the said constable shall not be discharged but by producing to the justice, on or before the return-day of the execution, the receipt of the plaintiff, or such other return as may be sufficient in law," &c. We must take the offer as true, and if so, the execution of J.W. Austin never was delivered or directed by the magistrate to Snapp, but to Crabb. How he got the possession of the execution does not clearly appear; probably from Crabb; and if so, Snapp was his agent. We presume Snapp got it in some way from Crabb. If so, he was in this case the representative of Crabb, but not his legal representative from any evidence we can discover in the case. If Snapp had levied the execution without a deputation, he would have been a trespasser. The justice could not have issued a scire facias against him, because it was not directed to him to be executed, and so entered on his docket, as the statute requires. So far as we can judge, it was a private matter between Crabb and Snapp. Sureties are only...