Opinion
01-23-1818
Munford v. Rice and Others
Wickham for the appellant. May and Leigh for the appellees.
On a motion by James H. Munford late High Sheriff of Nottaway County, against James Rice, and sundry persons his sureties, it appeared (inter alia,) from the notice and several bills of exceptions, that the plaintiff's motion was for the amount of a Judgment obtained against himself, in behalf of the Commonwealth, for part of the Revenue Taxes in the said County for the year 1815, which the defendant Rice, as his deputy, had collected and failed to pay into the public Treasury within the time required by law; that the bond given by the said Rice and his sureties, bore date the 10th of October 1813, and was conditioned for performance of his duty, indemnifying the said James H. Munford, & c., " during his continuance in office," without specifying the length of time; that the said Bond was executed in consequence of the appointment and qualification of the said Rice as Deputy Sheriff in October 1813; that he did not continue in office more than one year, under that appointment, but was appointed again on the 6th of October 1814, to act as deputy Sheriff for another year; that the said Munford the High Sheriff, also, did not continue in office longer than one year under his first appointment, but, at the end of the first year, was again commissioned and qualified; viz, on the same 6th day of October 1814. The sureties therefore contended, that the said Munford could not delegate to the said Rice an authority to act as deputy Sheriff for a longer period of time than his own office continued; and, consequently, that the said bond could not be binding upon them for the second year in which the said Rice acted as the deputy of the said Munford; and that there was nothing in the said bond to shew their intention to be bound for such second year.
The County Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, which, upon an appeal to the Superior Court of law, was reversed, and judgment was ordered to be entered for the defendants; whereupon the plaintiff appealed to this Court.
Affirmed Judgment.
Wickham for the appellant.
May and Leigh for the appellees.
OPINION
Judge Roane pronounced the Court's Opinion.
The Court is of opinion that this case does not come within the decision of the Court, in the case of Royster v. Leake; in which the condition of the bond stated that the deputy Sheriff was to act as such until Goochland November Court 1804, and that stipulation was considered as added to, and extending the expression, " during his continuance in office," beyond the year for which his principal was first appointed; and which, in this private contract between the Sheriff and his Deputy, it was competent for them to do. That stipulation is wanting in the case before us; and this case falls within the principles of that of Fairfax v. the Commonwealth, 4 Hen. & M. 208, in which the expression aforesaid was limited to the first year. The Court is also of opinion, that it is not natural to give, to this general expression in the bond of the Deputy Sheriff, an extension beyond the term for which his principal himself held his office.
On this ground, and not deciding any other point occurring in the case, the Court is of opinion to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.