Case Name: Joseph Westerhaven v. Jacob Clive
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1831-12
Citations: 5 Ohio 136
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Joseph Westerhaven v. Jacob Clive.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 5
Pages: 122–125

Head Matter:
*Joseph Westerhaven v. Jacob Clive.
, The fact whether a constable’s official bond was received or rejected, may be proved by parol, where no written entry is made concerning it.
The admission of evidence pertinent to any point in a case is not error, though the court admit it for a wrong reason.
Constable’s official bond, given after the expiration of ten days from his appointment, is not void. Such a bond found in the office is not, therefore,, a matter of record.
This cause came before the court upon a writ of error toa judgment, of the court of common pleas of Hocking county, and was-adjourned here for decision by the Supreme Court sitting there.
The original case was this: An action of debt was brought in the name of the State of Ohio, for the use of Jacob Clive, against Joseph Westerhaven. The declaration counted upon a bond mad» by Joseph Westerhaven and others, on May 2, 1826, conditioned, that if Simon Decker should well, truly, and faithfully discharge the duties of constable for the township in the year 1826, etc. The declaration averred that Decker held the office of constable for the year 1826; that on May 20, 1826, an execution was put into his hands, in favor of Clive, against one Burt; that Decker refused and neglected to levy upon property to make the money due on the execution; that for this default Clive recovered judgment against'Decker, upon which execution had issued and return made that nothing could be found to satisfy the same.
The general issue of non est factum was pleaded, with a notice. This notice set out that Docker was elected constable, but did not give bond within ten days, whereupon the trustees appointed another person to the office of constable; that if defendant ever did give bond for Decker, it was with other obligors than those-named in the bond declared upon; that the bond declared upon never was delivered to the clerk of the township, and by him. received as defendant’s bond; and that the same never was approved of by the trustees. Yerdiet and judgment for the plaintiff.
At the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the record of the-judgment, Clive v. Decker, which was objected to, but received. Defendant excepted.
Plaintiff then gave in evidence the township record, containing-the subjoined entries: “April 16, 1826. Ordered, that Horae» Stone and Samuel Alexander be appointed and *serve as constables for said township the present year, and that they be notified of their appointment by the township clerk.”
“May 2, 1826. Simon Decker gave bond as.constable, in the-sum of six hundred dollars, with Joseph Westerhaven, T. W. Claxton, W. Wallace, and J. W. Coffinberg as sureties — bond filed the same day.”
Whereupon the defendant offered to prove by the individuals-who were trustees at the time, that the bond declared upon was-never accepted by them, but absolutely refused and rejected. The-plaintiff objected to the admission of this testimony, and the court rejected it. The defendant excepted.
The evidence being closed, the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury, that the bond not being given within ten days-after the election, and a new appointment having been made, there-being no evidence of the reappointment oí Decker, he could not be held a constable, and the bond was not obligatory; that the township record showed that Wallace was a surety, in the bond accepted, and his name not being on the bond declared upon, it-did not appear that the bond declared on was the one on which Decker acted as constable.
The court refused to give all the instructions asked for, and the-defendant excepted. The errors assigned were predicated upon these different exceptions.
Olds, for plaintiff in error,
cited 3 Ohio, 487; 2 Ohio, 348.
H. Stanbery and Hunter, for defendant in error,
cited 14 Mass.-167.

Opinion:
Opinion of the court, by
Judge Hitchcock:
Sundry errors are assigned in this case:
I. That the court of common pleas erred in admitting, under-the state of the pleadings, in evidence of the breach, *is the declaration assigned, the record of a judgment in favor oí said Jacob Clive against Simon Decker.
It is not denied that this record was a proper item of evidence, but the objection is that it was admitted for an improper purpose.
This objection is not well taken. If evidence is proper for any purpose in a case, it should be admitted, and it is immaterial what treasons are assigned by the coart, when it is received. That this record is proper evidence to show the amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover, provided he has any right, there can be no -doubt. If, in the charge to the jury, the court had directed them that this was an item of evidence to prove the breach in the declaration assigned, and this had been spread upon the record, the question which the counsel for the plaintiff in error wishes to raise, would have been fairly presented to the court. But nothing •of this kind appears. Upon this assignment, then, we can not reverse the judgment.
2. That the court erred in rejecting the testimony of the trustees, to prove that the bond declared upon had been by them disap•proved and rejected. The law requires that a constable shall give -bond with sureties, to be approved of by the trustees of the- township. This law ought to be complied with, but we are not prepared to say, that if a bond be delivered to a township clerk, and by him filed away, that such bond would not be obligatory, without proof of its having been approved by the trustees. When, however, a bond is presented to the trustees, and by them rejected and disapproved of, it is clear that such bond can not be held obligatory. The sureties are discharged. Can this disapproval or rejection be given in evidence? The court of common pleas rejected this evidence upon the principle that the official acts of the trustees must be proved by the record of the township alone. We do not believe that these records are of that absolute verity, that any person shall be estopped to show the truth, in consequence of any matter which they contain. We are of opinion, therefore, that in rejecting this evidence, there was error.
3. That the court erred in refusing to charge the jury as requested by the plaintiff in error. And,
*4. That the court erred in charging the jury that the bond "itself became matter of rebord, etc.
There can be no doubt but that after the ten days had expired,' Decker having failed to give bond, it was the duty of the trustees ¡to consider the office as vacant, and appoint another person to •fill the office of constable. This was done; but up to the time the bond in suit bears date, neither of the individuals thus appointed had complied with the law by executing bond. If, then, the trustees Lad accepted this bond, it would have been, on their part, a ratification of the appointment of Decker, and the security would have been holden. The mere circumstance that the bond is executed after the ten days have expired is not sufficient to* vitiate it. So far, then, as respects the first and third instructions-of the court, we think they might well be refused.
As to the second instruction requested, it should have been.' given. From the township book, as shown by the bill of exceptions, it appears that on May 2, 1826, Decker gave bond as constable in the sum of six hundred dollars, with the same persons named in the bond now in suit, together with fm. Wallace, as-sureties. It can not, with'propriety be said, that a bond found in the office of the township clerk, years afterward, became so far a-matter of record as to control this entry of May 2, 1826.
In refusing the instruction stated in the second particular, and in declaring the effect of filing bond upon the entry óf 2d of May,, there was error. Judgment reversed.