Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-12-28
DECISIONS OF THE sUPREmE COURT
OD'niOns Of the Supreme Court of tn
SIat of II nneSsees at Ia kS0n, April
TerENs 1880.

OFflCLAL.
Oe S,n. 81 81 the Supreme cSas. Of .hs
Term, 1880.
crI'tenden TerriIl ct al.
This was a IN ItIon for judgment against a cor
table and his securities for the non payment oil
money collected by him.
The Crcrit Ju lge gave Judgment against tn,
,laintT and he has appealed TO this Court.
The facts OF the case are these The defenda n
Terrill, elected constable for the f n tn civil
district of Haywood county IN March, 1857, and a.
.he next term of the County Court thereafter wa
qualified and remained in Office during his term oi
NO years. While 50 in Office, and on the 9Th O,
January 1856. the plaintiff placed in his hands fol
objection, note upon one Jones. for S67.jG ami
OOk his receipt as officer, in which he promised
collect, TO return IL as the law directs On the
it'll of the same month he took judgment upon a
tote against Jones. and it remained withoutsissu
lnce of any execution until the expiration of his
Official term when he moved ilto the 9Th civil dis
net of said county, where he was again elected a
constable in March, lsoG-ha wing been out OF Office
wo years.
He was qualified under this last election ON the
tn of April, 1856, and gave bond with the other
defendants as his securities; Had remained in office
lntil Jul " term, 1857, when he resigned. On the
9TH of September, 1854 Terru who was then out
of Office caused execution to be issued upon SAID
Judgment aud placed in the hands of or Brantly
ShO had succeeded him as constable in the 4th Dis
lrict. BPantly collected the money on the 2lst of
April, 1856, and the 9th of October of the same
year, paid it to Terru who has never paid it to the
plaintiff
The collection by Brantly was upon a levy made
BY him while in office.
We think the judgment OF the Circuit Court was
correct 1t is clear there is no liability Terrill
and his securities in their first bond, as official
default occurred during that term. He had no ex-
ecuton in his hands, made levy and collected no
money; and when he ceased to he an officer the Ii
ability of his sureties for any after misconduct also
ceased, 3 Hum. 4l9, do. 44T.
1t is true that he by the receipt for the note in
this became the agent for the plaintiff for its
collection; and for any negligence in failing to
on the note or to take out execution or any other
unofficial act he would be personally answerable in
an action; but for these things his suret are not
responsible; the same not constituting official mis-
corduct-but may be the violation of the Gu les o.
private agency, which, it he's been held he is not
forbidden by his official station to assume 3 Hum.
2l8, do. 20, Yer. SOP.
1t will thus be seen that this officer stood to the
plaintiff in the double relation of private agent and
constable at the same time. When his official term
expired all authority, this claim officer of
necessity, was at an end. Not with his private
agency That continued unrevoked and full eff
cacy to the reception of the money from Branty
Ano he could not legally. apprehend, have
ceived il in any other character than that of EFT
for the plaintiff. A payment in airy other sense
would have been no discharge of Brantly-as was
held by this Court in Pate ct. al vs. Parks ct. AL
Sneed $50. An officer cannot by virtue of his office
merely. without warrant, authority from the cred
tor, take money belonging to him in the bands Of
another officer, and which he had collected upon
claims or executions in favor of that creditor
1t is true that the official duty of constable has
been so enlarged, by statute, that to render them
and their sureties responsible for failure to pay
over money collected by them as constable, by rir-
tue of their office, but without process in their hands
but that is not this case Hum 40G.
Judgment affirmed. WRIGHT.
Test: N. D. WEIGH, Clerk.