Case ID: scl_6/html/0150-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Nott? J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Columbia, November Term, 1812.
    Arthur Clark & Co. vs. Henry Moore.
    Evans, for the Motion,
    Clark. Contra.
    
    The Sher. iff is an-in law the taken under tho prison bounds sufficient, security110 shouid^af-prove in-tiifTsheriff will be responsible, though the security have been good at the time.
    Action for discharging a prisoner without taking sufficient security, under the act commonly called ^le Pr^son bounds act. The prisoner had escaped, and upon a statement of facts, the only question was, r # 7 J * 7 whether the sheriff was liable, if the securities were sufficient at the time they were taken, and became insolvent afterwards. The presiding judge decided, that he was not liable, if the securities were sufficient when taken, and ordered a non-suit. The Present motion is to set aside the non-suit.
   Nott? J.

By the act, under which the bond in question is taken? no person is entitled to the benefit of the prison rules? until he? she? or they? shall have given satisfactory security to the sheriff? &c. and it also provides that the sheriff shall be answerable for the solvency of such security. Now, since the act makes the sheriff the sole judge of the security? and requires him to take only such as is satisfactory to him, and declares expressly that he shall be answerable for the solvency of such security, this court cannot say he shall not be answerable. The ease of Oxley vs. Cowperthwaite, 1 Dall. 349. is directly in point ? and? for the reasons given in that case? I think a new trial ought to be granted in this.

Colcock? Brevard? and Bay, Js. concurred.