
    Ronald v. Bentley et al. and Harmer v. Key.
    September, 1809.
    Sheriifs — Failure to Execute Process of Court — Liability, — A Sheriff is liable to the action of the party at common law, for not executing and returning the process of this Court.
    But ffu.'cre, whether he is liable to attachment?
    
      
      See monographic note on “Sheriffs and Constables” appended to Goode v. Galt, Gilm. 152.
    
   In these cases, on motion of the plaintiffs respectively, by counsel, for a rule in the former case, on the deputy-sheriff of Powhatan County, and in the latter case on the deputy-sheriff of Albemarle County, to shew cause, at the next term, why they should not be severally attached for not executing and returning, in due time, the process of this Court, which had been delivered to them for that purpose.

The Chancellor said, that he would make the rule, that the power of the Court might be inquired into; but that he should not now decide, whether the plaintiffs would be entitled to an attachment in case no cause should be shewn; but that it was very clear, the sheriffs were liable to the action of the plaintiffs at common law, and although there were many cases in which sheriff's might be attached; yet, whether these were of that description would be left open to investigation.

The rule was made returnable to the next term.  