Case ID: scl_27/html/0058-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Evans, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Geo. W. Smith vs. Cook & Norris.
    
    A bond given under the Trover Act of 1827, to the Sheriff, is not assignable; and the assignee of such a bond cannot sue, in his own name, on the bond.
    
      Before Evans, J. at Laurens, Fall Term, 1841.
    The plaintiff sued Cook in trover, who, with Norris, the other defendant, gave a bond for the delivery of the property, if the plaintiff recovered. The plaintiff did recover, and the property was not produced. The bond was taken to the Sheriff, under the Act of 1827, who assigned it to the plaintiff. The only question in the case was, whether the bond was assignable. The bond was payable to the Sheriff and his assigns ; and as it was given for the benefit of the plaintiff, the presiding Judge thought, and so decided, the action would lie.
    The defendant moved for a non-suit, because the bond sued on was not assignable, so as to enable the assignee to sue on it, in his own name.
    
      
      Young, for the motion. Mr. -, contra,
   Caria, per

Evans, J.

By the common law, a bond was not assignable so as to authorize the assignee to bring an action in his own name. We have no general law, authorizing such actions. The Act of 1798 does not; for that, it has been decided, relates only to money bonds. In Cobb vs. Williams, 1 Hill, 375, the action was on a guardianship bond, given to the Commissioner in Equity, and by him assigned to the plaintiff. Peck vs. Glover, 1 N. & McC. was by the assignee of the Sheriff, on a prison bounds’ bond, where the defendant had been arrested on mesne process. In both these cases, it was decided, the action would not lie, because the bonds were not made assignable by any Act of the Legislature. In all cases, where the as-signee may sue in his own name, it is by virtue of some statutary regulation. The Act of 1827, under which this bond was taken, contains no such provision, and the action should have been in the Sheriff’s name. The motion for a non-suit is, therefore, granted.

J. J. EVANS.

We concur. J. S. Richardson, J. B. O’Neall, B. J. Earle, A. P. Butler.