Case ID: scl_12/html/0373-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Colcock\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Dixon & Co. Assignees of the City Sheriff, vs. M. E. Vanezara.
    'iVhere a debtor, in the prison bounds, petitions for the benefit of the insolvent Jebior’o act, and submits his schedule, a,nd a suggestion of fraud is filed against him, under which lie is found guilty'by thb jury rnd remanded to gaol, the bail is thereby discharged; for by such false schedule he is disabled from taking the benefit of either the prison bumuh act or the insolvent debtor's o.<!.
    
    
      '•t seems that wherever the law uitcrferes, and in any manner takes the principal from the custody of the. bail, it is considered as a surrender.
    lYlIS was an action of c'-bt brought by the plaintiffs, the assignees of the she; 1-f, agobio.: the defendant, as security of John Self rid, o.i r-. bond taken by the city sheriff, pursuant to the direction.; of the insolvent debtor's act; the condition of which w;n that John lidjYtd should remain within the rules, limits, or hounds of the gaol, and should within forty days from its date, render to the clerk of the City Court a schedule on oath of the whole of hia e.t • tate, both real and; personal, or so much thereof as would satisfy the debt for v/hich he was arrested.
    The piahd.iSi hi their declaration set forth, that John. Jldjrid applied in the usual manner for the benefit of the insolvent debtor’s act; that the plaintiffs filed a suggestion of fraud against him, under which he was, by the jury, found guilty i that he was consequently remanded to gaol, that being “ ..rcoriuniUed to the bounds, limits and. rules of the. gaol of Charleston district, there to be held in the custody cf the su'd 31, if, Vnr.ezarc, his ball, for the said '■imits and bounds, the said j-L id i\uieza>'ti not regarding nrr duly t.s 1. *1 ‘W tk. trld n>!cs, limits and hounds of the said gaol for the said John Helfrid, on the-- day of-, in tile year-, freely and voluntarily suffered and permitted, without the leave or licence, and against the will of the said John Dixon Co. the said John Hel-frid to escape and go at large out of the said rules, limits ancf bounds, and out of the custody other, the said M. E. Yanezara, wheresoever the said John Helfrid would, without restraint, and whereby the said writing obligatory became forfeited.”
    The defendant pleaded a general demurrer to the declaration, and contended, that she was not liable,
    1st. Because the bond taken by the city sheriff was void, as he had no authority by law for taking such a bond.
    2d. Because by the order of the court, John Iielfrid was remanded to gaol, by which the security was release cd from all further responsibility. ,
    3d. Because if the suit could be sustained, a scire faci-as ought to have been brought, and not an action of debt, upon the bond.
    . As the council on both sides declared their intention to appeal, his honor Judge Drayton, the Recorder, decided* the case instantcr, and sustained the demurrer upon the first and second grounds taken in the argument.
   Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case the court concur with the Recorder on the second ground, that the bail was released from all further responsibility by the recommitment of the principal to gaol. The acts of 1759 and 1788, were intended for the relief of the poor and unfortunate debtors who might be disposed to make a fair and just surrender of all their property, or so much as might be necessary to pay the debt on which they should be confined. But while it provides for the. relief of such as are honest, it protects the creditor a'gainst the machinations of the dishonest. By the third section of the prison bounds act, all prisoners taken in execution, shall lie entitled to the bounds, on giving bond to remain within them, and also within forty days to. ai alce a schedule on oath or affirmation of his or her whole estate, or so much thereof as will pay and satisfy the sum due on the execution on which he or she shall be confined, (Grimke, P. L. 456,) and the 7th section declares, that if the schedule be not made, the party shall no longer be entitled to the bounds; and then it proceeds to say, if it be suspected that the return is false, the 'Judge shall impan-nel a jury to try the fact. The tenth section then declares, that whoever shall make a false schedule shall be deemed guilty of perjury ; shall be liable to lie again arrested and disabled from taking the benefit of that act, or the insolvent debtor's act. From which it is clear that the principal was properly remanded to gaol, and being so legally taken from the custody of his bail by the authority of law, she was thereby released from further responsibility. Wherever the law interferes, and in any manner takes the principal from the custody of the bail, it is considered as a surrender. a (4 Johns. Rep. 407. 6 Term. Rep. 247. 1 Mass. Rep. 283. 2 Johns. Cases, 283, 482.)

The motion is therefore dismissed, and the judgment below affirmed.

Justices Mott, Gantt, Richardson and Huger, concurred.