If the sheriff forbears, at the request of the plaintiff, to collect money on an execution, he is not responsible therefor; but if he forbears of his own accord, he will be liable for the damages the plaintiff may sustain thereby. If the whole amount of the execution is lost by the sheriff's negligence, he will be answerable for that amount; but if the money can still be collected from the defendant in the execution, (a fact which it will be for the sheriff to prove,) the sheriff will be liable only for the damage which the plaintiff has sustained by the delay.
The sheriffs is liable for the mere not returning an execution, but the damages therefor, will be only nominal.
Where the general doctrines and rules contained in a Judge's charge are correct, and there appears no special circumstances requiring a modification of them, and the party excepting has called for no special instructions which have been denied, an exception to the charge cannot be sustained.
GASTON, Judge.
— This case comes before the Court on the appeal of the plaintiff, and has been submitted to us without argument. On examining the record, we perceive that the plaintiff obtained a verdict but for nominal damages, and moved to have the verdict set aside, and a new trial awarded, because of misdirection of the Judge in his charge to the jury. This motion was refused, and its rejection is the only error assigned. We have examined that charge, and we do not perceive any instruction in it, of which the plaintiff has a right to complain. The general doctrine laid down in the charge is correct, and the rules recommended to the jury, as guides to their discretion in the regulation of damages, as general rules, appear to us unexceptionable. If more specific instructions were desired, they should have been prayed for; and the refusal of the Court to give them, made the subject of distinct exception. If there were special circumstances in the case, requiring any modification of the general doctrine, or of the general rules for estimating the damages; these should have been set forth, for we cannot presume their existence. As the alleged misdirection is not seen, we are of opinion, that the Court below, did not err in refusing the new trial.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.