Case Name: Commissioners of the Treasury v. William Mayrant
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1807-11
Citations: 2 Brev. 228
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commissioners of the Treasury v. William Mayrant.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 228–230

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
NOV., 1807.
Commissioners of the Treasury v. William Mayrant.
Security of sheriff, by bond conditioned for the performance of his public duties, how far the same extends. Ruled, that such security is bound by the return of his principal to a writ of fi. fa.
Return to a fi. fa., “ Levied (so much,)” held to be an official act, and binding on the sheriff’s securities to the amount. The sheriff’s securities were held to be responsible for the amount returned as levied by the sheriff, although they offered to prove the same was not levied; but without interest, except from the time it was demanded.
Debt on a bond, conditioned that William R. Davis should well and truly perform the duties of sheriff of Camden district; tried before Wilds, J., in Sumter district. Plea, performance. Replication setting forth a breach, by not having paid over, or accounted for, a certain sum of money, levied and collected upon an execution of fi. fa. of-, the real plaintiff, against--and Con-yers, and issue thereon.
The execution in the case above mentioned was produced, which had the return of the sheriff, Davis, indorsed thereon, stating that he, the said sheriff, had levied so much on the said execution.
It appeared from evidence produced by the defendant, that the sum of money, so returned as levied in virtue of the execution in question, was money which had fallen into the hands of the sheriff some time before the execution was lodged in his office, being the money of one of the defendants against whom the execution in question had issued ; and that the sheriff had, without any express authority from the person whose money it was, taken and returned the-same, as levied or raised by the execution. But it did not appear that the person whose money it was, had ever claimed it from the sheriff, or refused to sanction the return of the sheriff, or that he ever forbid the application of the money to the satisfaction of the execution. 4
Wilds, J., charged the jury in the-plaintiffs’ favor. He observed that the obligation of a security is a strictly legal one; and that the moral obligation of a security extends no farther than his legal obligation. That sheriff’s securities are liable, civilly, for all his official acts; but not for acts which may be done extra-offici. ally. That in the present case, the sheriff’s return was to be regarded as an official act. That it was an act which bound him officially, and made his securities liable. That it was pot material how, or in what manner, the money had been levied on the execution, or whether it had ever been levied or not. That whether the money had been obtained by private agency, or produced by the legal enforcement of the execution, the return on the execution equally released and discharged the defendants, or parties, against whom the execution issued, and- satisfied and annulled the execution to the amount of the money so returned.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
Riohakdson moved for a new trial, and contended, that the sheriff had not received any money for the real 'plaintiff in this case as sheriff. And notwithstanding the return, he had never made himself responsible, since he had no authority to appropriate the money in question to the satisfaction of the execution, and had done through a mistaken impression of duty. That when the money came into his hands he had no execution against the party whose molley it was, and therefore, could not' receive the money as sheriff; and after the execution did come into his hands, he could not levy or take the money in execution ; and had no authority, either from the party himself, or by order of court, to apply the money as he had done.
He further contended, that the verdict ought to be set aside, for another reason, because interest had been given on the sum returned by the sheriff, from the return of the execution, which was not just or reasonable; for the sheriff might have been ready at all times to pay over the money, if it had been required, and no evidence had been produced to prove that it had ever been required.

Opinion:
Watxes, J.,
declared the resolution of the whole court, Treze-vant, J., absent, sick. That the verdict was wrong by reason of the interest which the jury had allowed, since it did not appear that the sheriff had been called upon for the money. But without this the verdict was legally conect, for the doctrine upon which it was founded, as laid down by the presiding judge at the trial, was perfectly reasonable and legal.