21 Pa. 215 | Pa. | 1853
The opinion of the Court was delivered, fly
— In Booz v. Engarman (6 Harris 263), we held that an action could not be sustained against a constable for the
We have reconsidered the subject, and we are not able to give an answer at all satisfactory to the reasons set forth in that opinion. It still seems to us that to sustain an action like this would be against principle and analogy.
It does not appear by the report of Booz v. Engarman, whether Lantz v. Lutz (8 Barr 405) was cited or not. But it is no authority on this point. The question was not raised either here or in the Court below. The right of the plaintiff to sustain the action was taken for granted. It was not contested by counsel. The whole defence was grounded on the act of 1772. The reference to this question, which Chief Justice Gibson makes in his opinion, only show's that he saw the difficulty, not that he meant to solve it. It is not the duty of this Court to make assignments of error which the parties do not make for themselves, or to reverse a judgment for reasons which do not appear on the record to have been mentioned in the Common Pleas. If the right to maintain the action had been conceded in this case, as it was in Lantz v. Lutz, we would have affirmed the judgment. But the fact is otherwise. The point was fairly raised and erroneously decided.
Judgment reversed and ven. fa. de novo awarded.