Case ID: scl_28/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Neall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Lower Board of Commissioners of Roads for St. Peter's Parish vs. James S. McPherson.
    
    1. The objection that the names of the commissioners of roads are not set out in the declaration, in an action brought by them for the recovery of a fine, cannot prevail in arrest of judgment after verdict. See preceding case.
    2. The boards of commissioners of roads are quasi corporations, and, like all other public officers, can sue in the names of the persons composing the board for the time being.
    3. The neglect to send hands after notice to work the roads is not a misdemeanor — it is an omission to discharge a duty required by law, for which a specific fine is to be paid to the commissioners of die roads; and the amount, when ascertained, so as to become a sum certain, can only be recovered by action of debt.
    
      Before O’Neall, J., Beaufort District, April Term, 1842.
    Report op the Presiding Judge.
    This was an action of debt for the recovery of $115, a fine imposed on the defendant on the 8th of February, 1841, by the plaintiffs, for a default in not working the roads. The proof was very clear that the defendant’s overseer was notified regularly to send his hands (twenty-three) to work on the road in November. They were not sent, inasmuch as their services were needed on the plantation ; and the defendant in that event directed his overseer not to send them. The defendant was regularly warned to attend the board on the 8th February, 1841, to answer for the default. He sent his overseer to represent him. '
    The board, after hearing his excuse, fined him $115, being the amount he was liable to, according to law, for the default of (23) hands.
    Neither .the Act of .1825 nor 1826, (Acts of 1825, p. 39 ; Acts of 1826, p. 31,) provides for the collection of a fine over $20. My construction of the Acts is, that the commissioners may hear the defaulter and impose the fine, but they cannot collect it by execution, when the amount exceeds twenty dollars, ($20.) How, when above that sum, fines are to be collected, is the question 'l I think by action of debt, which unquestionably is, in many instances, a concurrent remedy with indictment for the collection of a fine incurred. - This is, I think, more especially so, when the fine is to be recovered for the use of an individual or body corporate. The action in the case is brought in the name of the chairman, clerk, and treasurer of the lower board of commissioners of roads for St. Peter’s parish, Acts of 1825, p. 39, § 26. How the matter is laid in the declaration, I do not know. According to my instructions, the jury found for the plaintiffs $115.
    The defendant appealed, and moved in arrest of judgment, on the annexed grounds :
    1. Because the commissioners of roads were not named in the declaration.
    2. Because the various Acts relating to commissioners of roads, nowhere give them the power to sue.
    3. Because the default in not sending hands on the roads is a misdemeanor, and the fine consequent thereon should be recovered by indictment, and not by action of debt.
    Singleton and Currell for the motion. Martin contra.
   Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

The first ground in arrest of judgment in this case, was settled in the case of The Lower Board of Commissioners of the Roads for St. Peter's Parish vs. Guerard. No objection is taken in the grounds of appeal to the fact that the action was brought in the name of the chairman, clerk, and treasurer. The declaration has not been brought up, and we do not know how the cause of action is stated. On a motion in arrest of judgment, we do not look beyond the grounds taken, unless the record be spread before us, so that we can see that the judgment would be altogether without authority to support it. In this case, it is probable that the objection could not noto prevail. For a suit by the officers of the board is really a suit by the commissioners, and the objection is, that the names of the board are not set out in the declaration. This is too late after verdict.

The second ground is, I think, without foundation in law to support it. By the 1st section of the Act of ’25, 9 Statutes at Large, 558, it is provided that “ all the boards of commissioners of roads in this State shall continue to have legal existence until otherwise ordered by law.” When legal existence is conferred on any body of men, it gives them all the powers of natural persons to contract and be contracted with, to hold and convey property, sue and be sued. There is no doubt that they are quasi corporations, and can sue, like all other public officers, in the names of the persons composing, for the time being, the board.

The third ground is, I think, free from difficulty. The not sending hands after notice to work the roads, is not a misdemeanor. It is an- omission to discharge a duty required by law; and for such default the law fixes a specific fine, to be paid to the commissioners of the roads. This, when ascertained, as it can easily be by the number of hands liable to work, and the number of days they failed to work, becomes a sum certain, due to the commissioners of roads; and for such a cause of action debt is the only remedy. The motion is dismissed.

Richardson, Evans and Wardlaw, JJ, concurred.