Roger B. Taney,
Gwinn v. Buchanan — Opinion of the Court
“ As a general principle, it is undoubtedly true, that the marshal is responsible for the acts of his deputy in the execution of process; and if the deputy had taken the funds mentioned in the testimony without any orders from the plaintiffs, or their attorney, and returned the execution satisfied, the plaintiffs would not have been bound to accept these funds in discharge of their judgment, and might have insisted on the full amount from the marshal in gold and silver. ”
