
    Cassandra J. Jentry vs. James Hunt, Sheriff
    'The sheriff is liable for a trespass in his deputy’s taking- and selling under an execution, the property of the wrong person.
    Motion to set aside nonsuit.
    ■Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, Spartanburgh court, April Term, 1823.
    THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis, against the late sheriff of Spartanburgh, for executing and selling the property of a third person.
    It appeared in evidence, that a special deputy went to the house of the plaintiff’s father, Reuben Jentry, with an execution against his property, and a special deputation to levy on his effects : That he ievied on a bay mare and. colt, the property of the plaintiff, as her father’s, being found outside of all enclosures, and the plaintiff in.ir.o 'iateiy informed him that the mare and colt were her > opertv, and forbade his further interference with tHm. Ho afterwards levied on some other property of the p>in-tiff’s, viz : one colt, cows and household furniture as her father’s. On the day of sale, she made known to the deputy her claim to the property, and forbade the sale; notwithstanding which he sold the ptoperty.
    The plaintiff clearly established a right in part of the property, out the -court ordered a nonsuit, because the deputy ha 1 not pursued the orders of his deputation.
    Tfie plaintiff now moved the Constitutional .Court to set aside the nonsuit, on the following grounds, viz.
    1st Because the sheriff is liable for the trespasses commit! ed by his deputy in an official capacity, whether done with, or without his consent.
    2ud. Because the acts of the deputy, under an execution delivered him by the sheriff, are the acts of the sheriff himself, and he is liable for any injury sustained thereby.
    
      J. W. Farrow, for the motion.
    P. Farrow, contra.
   Mr. Justice Qolcach

delivered the opinion of the court:

From the view which was presented, of the facts on the trial below, the presiding judge thought that this case might form an exception to the general rule that a sheriff is liable for the acts of his deputy. (1 Douglass, 43, n. 3. 2 Term Rep. 148. y But on a view of them, the court is unanimously of opinion that the sheriff is liable, if the property be that of the plaintiffs, for any damages which she may have sustained by the unlawful taking. (See the case of Sanderson vs. Baker & Martin, (2 Black 832, and 3 Wilson 309.)

The case ought to have been submitted to the jury, and the motion is therefore granted.

Justices Richardson, Johnson, Huger, Gantt and Nott, concurred.  