Case Name: George W. Crawford, Governor, for the use of Geo. W. Tarpley, administrator of Thomas M. Tarpley, plaintiff in error, vs. Wyatt Meredith and William F. Bond, survivors, &c. defendants
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1849-05
Citations: 6 Ga. 552
Docket Number: No. 76
Parties: George W. Crawford, Governor, for the use of Geo. W. Tarpley, administrator of Thomas M. Tarpley, plaintiff in error, vs. Wyatt Meredith and William F. Bond, survivors, &c. defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 552–554

Head Matter:
No. 76.
George W. Crawford, Governor, for the use of Geo. W. Tarpley, administrator of Thomas M. Tarpley, plaintiff in error, vs. Wyatt Meredith and William F. Bond, survivors, &c. defendants.
[1.] A Sheriff’s bond, taken and approved by only two of the Justices of the Inferior Court, is not good and valid as a statutory bond, according to the provisions of the Statutes of this State.
Debt on bond, in Wilkinson Superior Court. Tried before Judge Merriwetiier, April Term, 1849.
This was a suit on the official bond of William Cooper, former Sheriff of Wilkinson County. When the bond was offered in evidence on the trial, it appeared to have been “ sealed and delivered in presence of Samuel Beall, J. I. C. William Eisher, J. I. C.”
It was objected to by defendant’s counsel upon the ground, that if relied on as the official bond of William Cooper, it did not, upon the face of it, show that it had been taken by a majority of the Justices of the Inferior Court, as the law directs; and that as it was attested by two Justices only, the presumption was that it had not been received and approved by a majority of the Justices, as pointed out by law.
The Court sustained the objection and rejected the evidence; which decision is alleged to be erroneous.
Cochran & Cone, for plaintiff in error, cited—
3 Kelly, 507. 5 Ga. Rep. 570. 1 Peters’ Reps. 318. Prince’s Digest, 430.
I. L. Harris, for defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Warner, J.
delivering the opinion.
The only question made for the decision of the Court below, as appears from the record, was whether the Sheriffs bond offered in evidence, was a good and valid statutory bond. The Court ruled it was not a good and valid statutory bond, and, we think, properly so ruled, for the reason, it appears, on the face of the bond, to have been taken and approved by only two Justices of the Inferior Court, whereas, by the 46th section of the Judiciary Act of 1799, Sheriff's bonds are required tobe approved by the Justices of the Inferior Court, or any three of them. Prince, 430. By the declaratory Act of 1803, it is enacted, "that every Judge of the Superior, or a majority of the Justices of the Inferior Courts of the respective Counties throughout this State, is and are, and, by intendment of law, ought to have been taken, held, deemed and considered as competentin law to take the bonds or obligations of Sheriffs, and to qualify them as by law directed." Prince, 176, '7.
This bond having been taken and approved by only two of the Justices of the Inferior Court, when the Statute requires it should have been approved by at least three of them, cannot he said to be a good statutory bond. "Whether this bond is good as a voluntary bond, and binding as such on the parties to it, does not appear to have been raised or decided by the Court.
Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed*