Case ID: va_16/html/0456-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Royster and Others v. Leake.
    Wednesday, May 8th, 1811.
    I. Deputy Sheriff — Official Bond — How Long Binding. —A bond from the deputy to the high sheriff, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duty, during his continuance in the office of deputy sheriff, is binding upon him and his sureties, tor the second year as well as the first, and until the winding up of the business lawfully committed to him as deputy.
    2. Same — Judgment against notion on. — Under the 51st section of the execution law, (Rev. Code. vol. 1, c. 151.) the remedy by motion is given against the sureties of a deputy sheriff, after a judgment against him for the same cause; such judgment not appearing to be satisfied. The motion also may be made against the sureties, separately from their principal.
    In this case, Leake, for the benefit of M’Coul, by motion in a summary way, under the Slst section of the execution law, obtained a judgment in the Richmond district court against Royster and others, sureties for James Vaughan, deputy for Joseph Payne, late sheriff of Goochland county.
    In support of his motion, (the notice being proved,) the plaintiff gave in evidence a judgment obtained in his name against Gideon Hatcher and others ; a writ of fieri facias thereupon, dated September 14th, 1804, which came to the hands of James Vaughan, deputy sheriff as aforesaid, and was returned by him, “1804, November 17th, executed, on 7 negroes, &c. remaining unsold for want of bidders a writ of ven-ditioni exponas, bearing date the 3d of July, 1805, returnable to the first day of the district court to be held in September following ; which was returned, “1805, October 1st, satisfied by a discount of the revenue tax for the year 1804. James Vaughan, D. S. for Joseph Payne, late sheriff of Goochland.”
    The court gave judgment for the plaintiff, for the sum received by Vaughan, with interest at the rate of 15 per centum per annum, from the second day of September, 1805 ; whereupon the defendants appealed.
    Wickham, for the appellants,
    said that the bond given by the deputy sheriff, in this case, was taken under the common error that the sheriff’s office lasted two years. This is precisely the case of The Commonwealth v. Fairfax, 4 Hen. & Munf. 208. The sureties were not answerable for the second year.
    He contended, moreover, that, under the 51st section of the execution law, the remedy by motion being given against the deputy sheriff, or his sureties, the plaintiff had not a right to obtain one judgment against the deputy, and another against the sureties. Besides, the law allows either a joint or a several motion ; but this is neither one nor the other, 
    
    No counsel appeared for the appellee ;
    but, after inspecting the record, and considering the case, the court unanimously affirmed the judgment.
    
      
       Deputy Sheriff — Official Bond — How Long Binding. —In Munford v. Rice, 6 Munf. 81, it was held that a bond from the deputy to the high sheriff conditioned for the faithful performance of his duty as deputy “clurino his continuance in office," without specifying the length of time, is binding on him and his sureties for the transactions of one year only. The principal case is distinguished from the case at bar, and in a note (p. 81) it is said: “It appears that the marginal Epitome, pi. 1, to the case of Booster v. Leake, 2 Munf. 280, is not correctly expressed. It should be as follows: — ‘A bond, from the deputy to the high sheriff, dated November 15th, 1802, and conditioned for the faithful performance of his duty as deputy, “during his continuance in office, until November court 1804,” was adjudged binding upon him and liis sureties, for the second year as well as the first, and until the winding up of the business lawfully committed to him as deputy.’ ”
      The principal case was also cited in Cecil v. Early. 10 Gratt. 205; Tyler v. Nelson, 14 Gratt. 222.
      See further, monographic note on “Official Bonds” appendedtoSangsterv.com.. 17 Gratt. 124; mono-graphic note on “Sheriifs and Constables” appended to Goode v. Galt, Gilm. 152.
    
    
      
       Same — Motion against. — See principal case cited in Jacobs v. Hill, 2 Leigh 400.
    
    
      
       Rev. Code, vol. 1, c. 151. p. 805, 806.
    
    
      
       Leftwich v. Berkeley, 1 Hen. & Mnnf. 61.
    
   *The plaintiff also produced the bond executed by the said Vaughan and his sureties to Joseph Payne, his principal. It bore date the 15th day of November, 1802. The condition stated that he was to act as deputy, “ until Goochland November Court, 1804,” but concluded with “if, therefore, the said James Vaughan shall truly and faithfully, &6. &c. during the time of his continuance in office of deputy-sheriff, then the above obligation to be void, or else to remain in force.”

The defendants gave in evidence a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the said Vaughan, for nonpayment of the same money, received by him and now demanded of his sureties ; but there was no proof of satisfaction of that judgment.