Case ID: va_30/html/0812-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PARKER, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Rixey and Others v. The Justices of Fauquier.
    July, 1831.
    Negroes Committed by Court — Liability of County for Maintenance. — The expense of keeping and maintaining negroes committed by order of a county court to the custody of the sheriff, cannot in any case be a lawful charge upon the county.
    Case adjourned from the circuit court of Fauquier.
    The county court of Fauquier, at June term 1820, proceeded to make up, in its minutes, an account of expenses incurred by the court and properly chargeable to the county and remaining unpaid, and to levy the amount due on the tytheables of the county ; and among others, it admitted and made the following charges against the county, viz. “To E. D. late sheriff of Fau-quier, per account, 240 dollars — To E. D. late sheriff, per account, S97 dollars — To W. S. late sheriff, per account, 77 dollars.” The accounts of the sheriffs referred to in the charges, shewed that these allowances were made to them, respectively, for keeping certain negroes the property of one Nelson, for a considerable length of time, under orders of the county court.
    Rixey and twenty three others, freeholders of the county, presented their petition to the circuit court, at July term 1829, complaining that the charges above mentioned were made by the sheriffs, for keeping certain negroes, who were suing in forma pauperis to recover their freedom, and that this constituted no legal charge upon the county, and pra3’ing, therefore,.that the order of the county court laying the county levy should be superseded and reversed.
    
    *Writs of supersedeas and certiorari were accordingly awarded, and various proceedings had in the case, until December term 1830, when the circuit court adjourned to this court, many questions of law, for novelty and difficulty, the last of which was, What judgment ought to be given in the case ?
    
      
       See the statute concerning tytheables and the mode of laying and collecting the county levy, 2 Rev. Code, ch. 191, § 6, 9.
      The 6th section provides, that “the justices of the several counties within this commonwealth, shall and they are hereby authorized and empowered, at their courts respectively to be held in the month of May or June, annually, or as soon after as may be if no court shall be held in either of those months, to proceed to make up, in their minutes, an account of all expenses incurred by the said court, under authority of any law chargeable on the county, and remaining unpaid, stating therein the sums due, for what, and to whom due, and all credits owing to the said county. When the balance due from the county is thus ascertained, by deducting the sums due to the county from those owing by the county, the said justices shall proceed to levy and assess on the tytheable persons in their respective counties, the amount of that balance in equal proportions. The sums due to the counts', and the sum to be assessed on the tytheables, shall then be appropriated by the court, so as to shew the right of each county creditor and the amount of his demand."
      The 9th section provides, that “if any county court shall lay any levy otherwise than is allowed by law, it shall be lawful for the judge of the superiour court of law within whose jurisdiction such county may be, at any time within forty days after such levy shall have been laid, either in term time or in vacation, upon the petition of twenty four freeholders subject to such levy, to award a supersedeas to the order of the court whereby such levy was laid, if upon an inspection of the copy of such order, it shall appear that tfie levy has been laid contrary to law; and, at the same time, it shall be lawful to award a certiorari, to cause the record to be certified into the superiour court of law having jurisdiction over such county: When such record shall be so certified, the superiour court shall proceed, without delay, to reverse or affirm the order laying the said levy, as to them shall seem right.” — Note in Original Edition.
    
   PARKER, J.,

delivered the resolution of the court.- The court, without deciding whether it would reverse an order laying a county levy, which did not shew on the face of it, for what the respective sums were charged, so as to make it appear, that the expenses incurred had been incurred under the authority of some law, and were properly chargeable to the county, — is of opinion, that the sheriffs’ accounts referred to in the account stated in the minutes of the county court, are to be considered as part of the order, and do shew for what the sums allowed to the two sheriffs respectively, were. due. They were due for keeping certain negroes, the property of an individual, committed to the custody of the sheriff by order of the county court. Now, if (as is alleged in the petition of the twenty-four freeholders) these negroes were suing in forma pauperis for *their freedom, the person who claimed property in them, refusing to give bond and security for their forthcoming to answer the judgment of the court, as required by law, must bear the expense of keeping them. 1 Rev. Code, ch. 124, § 4, p. 481; Sarah v. Henry, 2 Hen. & Munf. 19. But, if that fact is not to be assumed, still the levy cannot be supported ; since we cannot conceive a case in which the county can be made liable for the keeping of slaves, or persons claimed as slaves, committed to the custody of the sheriff. The only cases of such commitments that occur to us, are, when they are committed for criminal of-fences, or as runaways, or under execution for debt, or by their owners in certain cases, or when they are in the predicament above mentioned of paupers siting for freedom. In neither of these cases are the tytheables of the county liable for their support, and we believe that no case can be stated, in which they are so liable. Therefore, the levy of the 22d of June 1829, was laid otherwise than is allowed by law; and this court, without answering or deciding the other questions adjourned, directs that it be certified to the circuit court of Fauquier, that the order of the county court laying the levy should he reversed.