
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV., 1812.
    John Seehorn v. James Darwin, Sen.
    No action lies against a person for receiving and assisting a debtor, who has been taken under a ca. sa. and escaped.
    Motion to reverse the decision, on demurrer. Tried before his honor Judge Brevard.
    This was a special action on the case. The declaration alledged, that the plaintiff had a judgment, and capias ad satisfaciendum, against James Darwin, Jr. upon which ca. sa. he was in custody. That James Darwin, Jr. contrary to the will of the sheriff escaped; and that James Darwin, Sr. knowing the premises, and to injure the plaintiff, and to prevent him from having satisfaction of his judg. ment, did during the escape and eloignment of James Darwin, Jr. harbor, comfort, hide and secrete him; and aided and assisted to keep him away from, and to elude the search of the sheriff; and that he furnished him with horses, money, clothing, &c. to go away, where the sheriff could not find or take him, and that during the said eloignment, and escape, to prevent the sheriff from taking the said James Darwin, Jr. he falsely affirmed, to the sheriff, that the said James Dawin, Jr. was not in the house of the said James Darwin, Sr. when in fact, he was in the house; whereby the plaintiff lost his damages recovered, &c.
    Demurrer to the declaration and joinder. The court supported the demurrer.
    The plaintiff moved the Constitutional Court at Columbia, to reverse the decision, and to overrule the demurrer, on the ground that the facts set forth in the declaration, show a good and lawful cause for action.
    Gist and Hooker, for the motion. Evans, contra.
    
   Colcock, J.

This action cannot be supported either by prece. dent or principle. I have never read or heard of such an action; though such occurrences must frequently take place, nor does it bear any analogy to cases quoted. There is no privity of contract between the parties, no consideration moving the defendant, no responsibility on him to the plaintiff, and no injury done to him, by the express showing of the plaintiff himself; for supposing that he lost his debt by the escape, he has a remedy against the sheriff, and therefore he at all events, has sustained no injury by the harboring, as it is styled. And further, it is not certain that he would have retaken him, had he been told he was in the house; nor if he had retaken him, is it certain that he would have obtained his money, for he might have taken the .benefit of the act. The court would not be induced to establish a new form of action, without manifest necessity, and none such appears in this case. I am therefore against the motion.

Gkimke, Bay, and Nott, Js., concurred.  