Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Dow v. Humbert — Opinion of the Court

To hold that these humble but necessary public duties can only be undertaken at the hazard of personal liability for every judgment which they fail to levy and collect, whether through mistake, ignorance, inadvertence, or accident, as a sheriff is for an escape, without any proof that the judgment creditor has lost his debt, or that its value is in any manner impaired, is a doctrine too harsh to be enforced in any court where imprisonment for debt has been abolished.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Dow v. Humbert — Opinion of the Court

It is not easy to see on what principle of justice the plaintiff can recover from defendants more than he has been injured by their misconduct.
If it were an action of trespass, there is much authority for saying that plaintiff would be limited to actual and compensatory damages, unless the act were accompanied with malice or other aggravating circumstances. How much more reasonable, that for a failure to perform an act of official duty, through mistake of what that duty is, that plaintiff should be limited in his recovery to his actual loss, injury, or damage!
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Dow v. Humbert — Opinion of the Court

With the means in the hands of the sheriff for safe-keeping and rearrest, with the escape of the debtor almost equivalent to a loss of the debt, and with compensation paid him by plaintiff for his service, it is not surprising, that, when he negligently or intensionally permitted an escape, he should be held liable for the whole debt.
How very different the duties of the class of officers to which defendants belong, and the circumstances under which their duties are performed! There is no profit in the office itself.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature