Case ID: scl_4/html/0394-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grimke, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    MAY, 1810.
    Abraham Blanding v. Ulysses Rogers.
    A bail bond to the sheriff, must be conditioned for the appearance of the party only; otherwise it will be void. So, too, if it be to answer to an action on the case, where the action is debt. And the sheriff who took such a bail bond, was held to be answerable to the plaintiff in an action for an escape.
    The damages in such case, on mense process, must depend on the extent of the injury, or loss sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the sheriff’s misconduct.
    Motion to set aside a verdict, obtained by a writ of enquiry after a judgment on demurrer, in Sumter district, before Smith, J. The action was trespass on the case against the defendant as sheriff, for suffering a person to escape, who had been arrested by him on mense process, in debt, requiring bail. Defendant pleaded in bar that he had arrested the defendant according to the exigency of the writ, and had taken from him a bail bond, with a condition under, written as follows: “'The condition of the above obligation is such, that if the ahove bound J. B. Vaughan, do personally be and and appear at the Court of Common Pleas, to be holdeu at Sumter court house, for Sumter district, on the second Monday in October next, to answer to Abraham Blending, administrator of James Wilkinson, in a plea of trespass on the case, and further to abide by the award, or decree of the said court, then, &c.” To this plea plaintiff demurred, and defendant joined in demurrer.
    The judgment of the District Court was for the plaintiff
    The motion in this court was argued by No it, for the defendant.
   Grimke, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, in substance agreeing with the opinion 1 had prepared, as follows. The judgment, or demurrer in ■ the District Court was correct, on two grounds. 1. Because the bond stated in the plea was not condition, ed for the appearance of the party only, pursuant to the stat. 23, H. 6, c. 9, of force here, and therefore void ; and 2. Because if it were not void by that statute, it would not be a bar to the present action, inasmuch as the present action is brought for suffering a person to escape, who was arrested on mense process in an action of debt, and a bond was taken with a condition to appear, and answer to an action on the case. In relation to the verdict being for the debt and interest, it is in my judgment right. The damages, re» coverable in an action for an escape on mense process, depends on the extent of the injury sustained in consequence of the sheriff’s misconduct. The debt, I presume, was proven, and the interest due thereon, which the bail bond, if properly taken, would have secured..

SeeP.L. 29. 2 T. R. 126, 37,172. 2 Bl. Rep. 1048. 8 Co. HI. Bull.N. P.64. 2 Esp. Dig. 609. 4 T. R. 611. 2 Lev. 85. 5 T. R.37. 7 T. R. 109. Peake’s Evict 389. 2 Wil. 295. 7 Johns. 189. Russell v. Tamer. Vid. 1 Johns. 223, 2 Johns. 454.

Motion rejected.