the  said  plaintifi**  William  Halcombe»  shall  not  have  exe-
cution  thereof,  &o."  Upon  the  return  of  the  scu  fa.  a
full  defence  is  open  to  the  sheriff;  he  may  show  that  the
writ  never  came  to  his  hands,  or  that  he  did  not  receive
it  until  after  the 'return  day,  or  that  by  some  inevitable
accident  he  was  prevented  from  making  his  return,  or  in
the  language  of  the  Act,  any  sufficient  reason.  If  the
sheriff  be  actually  present  in  Court,  when  the  motion
to  amerce  is  made,  the  Court  would  no  doubt  then  hear
his  excuse,  but  his  defence  is  not,  fortunately  for  him,  (in
this  particular,)  confined  to  that  time.  The  Act  not  only
gives  to  the  party  injured  the  sum  of  $100  for  each  fai-
Iure»  but  likewise  subjects  the  delinquent  officer  to  an
indictment.  With  equal  propriety  it  might  be  argued
that  the  prosecution  must  be  commenced  at  the  return
term  of  the  writ.
We  see  no  reason  to  disturb  the  judgment.
Per  C(jriam»  Judgment  affirmed.
JUNE  TERM,   1848.  74$


WILLIAM  MITCHELL  ««.  MOSES  WALKER.
Hm  action  of  aaMimpBit  ia  a  liberal  aetioa,  and  whert,  by  the  ebligatioiia  of
justice  and  eqoity,  the  defeudaot  oagrht  to  refund  moaey  paid  to  hinHy  th«
action  will  be  eustaiDed ;  but  where  he  may,  with  a  good  conecience,  re-
ceive the  money,  and  there  was  no  frand  or  unfair  practice  need  in  obtain*
mg  it,  though  it  was  money  he  eonid  not  have  recovered  by  law,  it  cannot
be  recovered  back.
The  jarisdiction  of  a  single  justice  extends  to  all  cases  for  the  recovery
•f  money,  when  the  amount  is  within  the  sum  designated  m  the  Act  of  the
General  Assembly,  when  a  general  indebitatus  will  lie,  whether  the  con«
tract  is  expressed,  or  implied  by  law.
