Case ID: scl_2/html/0090-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Sed per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abercrombie against Marshall.
    
      Charleston District,
    
    
      1797.
    
    A sheriff is li-hey paid into .ciei'k^in his embezzles"it° although he may not have heen authin-i-zea to i*eeeive it; the bare ma*public's^ him responsl-6It'
    UPON a rule on the sheriff of Charleston district, lit return a fi. fa. and to pay over moneys received thereon»
    The sheriff on shewing cause, stated to the court, that ^ money ln this case, was paid by the defendant to a c}erk }n his office, who was not authorized to receive money, ’ J1 and that he had made use of it.
    The defendant’s affidavit was produced and read, in which he deposed, that on hearing that an execution had heen lodged in the sheriff’s office against him, he went and got a statement of the debt and costs from one Mitchell, a clerk in the sheriff’s office, and paid him the money, and took his receipt for it on behalf of the sheriff.
    The sheriff then further stated, that in the routine of the duties of his office, he had deputies to serve writs, and the processes of the court, and to do out door business ; a bookkeeper, and one confidential clerk, who was his cashier, and who only was empowered to receive money ; and that this money was paid to his book-keeper, and not to the clerk who was authorized to receive money, &c.
    Mr, Desaussure, on behalf of the sheriff,
    contended, that the defendant paid this money at his own risk, as the bookkeeper was not authorized to receive money in the sheriff’s office ; and compared this case to that of master and servant, where the master was liable for the acts of his servant only, as far as he was entrusted by him, and no further. Also to that of attorney and principal, where the acts of an attorney were binding on his principal, no further than he was empowered or authorized. 3 Bac. Abr. tit. Master and Servant, 562. Salk. 27.
    
   Sed per Curiam.

The sheriff’s office is a public office, and one of great trust; always open for the transaction of public business, and none but trust worthy persons should be employed in such an office. The act of placing a clerk in such an office implies a trust, and holds out to the world an idea, that he is a proper person to transact business with, in the line of the sheriff’s office: and if a sheriff will place a man in such a situation, unworthy of his confidence, he should answer for it; the public ought not to be deceived by it. There is a wide difference between the private transactions of master and servant, where the master shall only be liable as far as he trusts his servant, and the conducting of a public office for the business of the world.

Rule made absolute on the sheriff, to pay the money into court for the use of the plaintiff.

Present, Burke, Grimke and Bay.