Case Name: Executor of Philip Hawkins, vs. Thomas Sumter, et. al.
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1814-02
Citations: 4 Des. Eq. 446
Docket Number: 
Parties: Executor of Philip Hawkins, vs. Thomas Sumter, et. al.
Judges: Heard by Chancellor James.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Camden.
Heard by Chancellor James.
cake ixw.
Executor of Philip Hawkins, vs. Thomas Sumter, et. al.
A security in a bond, lor a sheriff’s faithful performance of his-duties, who has obtained possession of the sheriff’s books, after his death, insolvent, shall be obliged to produce those books in evidence, on a subpoena duces tecum, in a suit between other persons, notwithstanding- the surety was apprehensive of danger to himself, from the disclosure of the books.
FEB’Y, 1814.
Wjxxiam Maye ant, having been ordered to shew cause'ivny,ail attachment should not issue against him for not obeying a subpeena duces tecum, requiring him to produce the official books of Wm, EL Davis, Esq. former sheriff of Camden district; for cause says,- that he was one of the securities in the bond given by the said sheriff upon his appointment to his said office, conditioned for the faithful discharge of his said office, &c. and that divers claims are made against the estate of the said W". R. Davis, (now deceased) on account of failures to discharge the duties of his said office faithfully ; which claims, if true? would cause a right of action on the bond aforesaid1 against the said William Mayrant. And the said Wm. Mayrant says, that the estate of the said Win. R. Davis is insolvent, and that should any recovery be had against the said Wm. Mayrant upon the bond aforesaid, he could not obtain from the estate of the said Davis, any reimbursement of what he should have to pay upon such recovery. And the said Wm. Mayrant further says, that if the .said books were in his possession, he believes he could not shew them, without discovering evidence which might, as to some of the said claims, operate against his own interest, and give to some of the claiming parties the means partly, or wholly of establishing against himself a right to a recovery upon the said bond. But the said Wm. Mayrant is not administrator nor successor in office of the said Wm. It. Davis.
Hooker and Levy, for W. Mayrant the witness.
On hearing arguments of counsel on both sides of this question, it was considered that the cause shewn by Wm. Mayrant in this case, was insufficient, and it is therefore decreed that the said Mayrant stands out in contempt of the court, and that an attachment must issue against him.
W. D. James*

Opinion:
On this case being mentioned to the judges (sitting in the Court of Appeals, in Equity) on the behalf of Mr. Mayrant, they were of opinion that the decision was correct, though as there could not be any formal appeal, in such a case, there was no regular judgment pronounced.