South v. Maryland (1856)

 

(59 U.S. 396, ; 15 L. Ed. 433)

 

Facts of the case:

 

On June 12th 1850, Johnathan W. Pottle, a resident of the state of Massachusetts was in Washington County, Maryland engaged in lawful business, when 4 men captured Pottle. Pottle was held by the men for 4 days until Pottle paid  $2,500.00, whereupon he was released. Johnathan Pottle went to the high sheriff of Washington County, Daniel South and essentially demanded that because South did not protect Pottle from the four men, that South owed Pottle damages in the amount of

$26,666.66 and 2/3rds cents. The money was to be paid from a bond set aside for the sheriff.

 

A lower court had ruled for the Plaintiff, Johnathan Pottle.

 

Questions before the Court::

 

(1) Whether Daniel South, as high sheriff of Washington County, Maryland  and "Conservator of the Peace" where the offense occurred was liable for a civil action, due to neglect of his duty to keep the Public Peace.

 

(2) Whether the high sheriff Daniel South had caused injury to plaintiff Johnathan Pottle by not suppressing the "riotous" behavior of the four men who took Pottle hostage.  

 

(3)Whether the high sheriff, Daniel South had exacerbated the injury, either to the person or property of plaintiff Pottle by neglect of his duty to keep the Public Peace.

 

(4) Whether the sheriff  was liable to a civil action any time someone was injured by a breach of the peace.

 

 

Court's Opinion:

 

 

Mr. Justice Greer, writing the opinion of the court found that Pottle did not have a cause of action or damages against either the sheriff, Daniel South, or against the sheriff's bond. The sheriff was not negligent in his duty vis a vis malfeasance or misfeasance regarding service of a process or writ. Such a neglect of duty would have cost Pottle monetarily. 

 

The Court also ruled that had South been criminally negligent by not performing certain duties entrusted to the sheriff, as the supreme law enforcement officer of the county, a cause of action was warranted. However, the duties covered only service of writs and process to which the sheriff was entitled to compensation. The Court held that there could not be found in cites in "law of the centuries" common law where a sheriff had been held liable for breaches of the public peace. The Court also ruled that since there was "no special right, privilege or franchise" alleged for the Plaintiff there was no cause for action against the sheriff.

 

As such, the lower court's decision for the Plaintiff was reversed in favor of the defendant, sheriff Daniel South.