Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/230

 2i8' FEDERAL REPORTER. �laiow tLat t'iere was any hope of this, for the law requires no notice i)f the adjournment excepting a proclamation at the time and place of the: original sale. I cannot agree that the sheriff stands in a fidu- ciary relation to the debtor. He is a mere agent or servant of the law, and must be protected if he has honestly carried ont the instruc- tions of the statute. �.jl'do not find a oonspiracy among these defendants, such as is charged against • them. I think it probable that Graffam was angry with the eompiainant for her neglect and refusai to pay his small bill ; that he hoped to obtain power over her, by a failure on her part to learn of the sale, in order that he might compel her to do what he considered right; that is, to pay him and his attorney handsomely, according to their own views of liberality, for their time and trouble and vexation. He might have followed methods more advantageous to the eompiainant. He might have levied on her real estate by appraisement and extent; or, after selling the realty, he might have paid himself from the rents and profits; he might have tak«n Per- sonal property ;• he might have warned her of the danger in which she stood. Graffani says he did warn her; but it is very doubtful whether the conversation which he testifies to did not take place after the foreclosure was complete. If it was before that time it is the worse for him, because it was a totally inadequate warning, not unlikely to mislead her. This is the only evidence of any act of his which looks like cOncealment; but I do not think it was intended to deceive her, nor that it did, in fact, deceive her. I believe the truth to be that he did not feel easy to take this valuable estate, even after the fore- closure, until he had given her one more opportunity to pay the debt;, and that, finding her still unreasonable, his conscience was appeased. �Ti^ese several things that Graffam might have done, he did not do; but whatever might be required of him by good morals, or good iieigh- borhood, or a regard to the opinion of mankind, he was under no legal obligation to do any of these things; and, as I have failed to fmd on his part any positive act of fraud or concealment, or anything more than silence when the law required no speech, I cannot find illegality in his conduct, and, of course, there was no oonspiracy on the part of the other defendants. I must, therefore, dismiss the bill as against the attorney, the deputy sheriff, and the defendant Newhall, who sold his judgment to Graffam, as he had a right to do, and the defendants who removed the furniture. If these persons are liable to suit, it is in trespass or trover. ��� �