midpage

Tinkom v. PurdyTinkom v. Purdy

New York Supreme Court
Feb 15, 1810
Reporters:
Per Curiam.

The adjournment of the sale ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‍to a different place, was a matter of discretion with the constable ; and ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‍the question must always be, whether this discretion has been abused. These ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‍is no charge of fraud or abuse in the present case ; ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‍and the constable could not, therefore, be liable as a trespasser. The ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​‍judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Case Details

Case Name: Tinkom v. Purdy
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Feb 15, 1810
Citation: 5 Johns. 345
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
Log In