Case Name: James Stevens, ads. Treasurers
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1822-01
Citations: 2 McCord 107
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Stevens, ads. Treasurers.
Judges: Justices Bay, Noli, Huger, Gantt and Johnson, cop-burred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 107–110

Head Matter:
James Stevens, ads. Treasurers.
The act of 1795, requires Sheriffs to give bond to the “ Treasurers of tire state,” Held, that a bond to the “ commissioners of the Treasury” is good.
So where tire same act requires that before the Sheriff’s bond is accepted by the Treasurer, it shall be approved of by 3 commissioners,-but the same was only approved of by 2 ; It was Held, that as long as the Sheriff remained in office, he must be regarded as an officer, and his own failure to perfect his security can not be pleaded in bar against the consequences of his misconduct in office.
So of the certificate required by the above act from the Treasury, and tobe recorded in the clerks office of the district, the. Sheriff ca» not object that it has never been obtained.
Sort is not objectionable on the part of the Sheriff, that his bond was for 5510,000, and the act required it tobe for $ 5,000.
Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Colleton, No^ vember Term, 1822.
THIS was an action of debt against the defendant as security in the official bond of Berkly Ferguson, late shexv .iff of Beaufort district.
The defendant pleaded in bar, viz: 1st. That the Act of Assembly of 1795, regulating the office of sheriff, required the sheriff’s bond to be made payable to the “ Treasurers of the state,” whereas, the 'bond in question, was made payable to the Commissioners of the Treasury.
2nd. That the said act required that the securities tp the said bond, before' they were accepted by the treasurers,.should be approved of by certain commissioners, or any three of them, or the office of the sheriff should be vacated ; vvhereas, the securities of this bond were approved of but by 2 commissioners.
3rd. That the said act required, that the sheriff should not enter on the duties of his office, until he had recorded in the office of the clerk of the District Court, for which he was elected, a certificate from ihe-*said commissioners, that-the sheriff had duty executed and lodged in the treasury, such bond with such security as was required by the Act of Assembly ; and if the sheriff should fail to comply with these requisites, the office of such sheriff should be vacated: Whereas, no such certificate required by the Act pf Assembly, was ever recorded in the office of the clerk of common pleas of Beaufort district.
4th. That by Act of Assembly pf 1799, the bond required from the sheriff of Beaufort district, was directed to he for the sum of $ 5,000; whereas the bond given fay the said sheriff and his securities, was for the sum of 810,000.
The plaintiff demurred to this plea, and the defendant joined in the'demurrer. The presiding Judge sustained the demurrer, and overruled the1 plea.
From this decision, an appeal was made, and a motion now made for the reversal of the decision of the Circuit Court, upon the gropnds set' forth in the said plea.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Richardson
delivered the opinion of the court:
The object of the act of 1795, was to obtain security $rom sheriffs, and for that purpose it points out certain iAeans by which the security shall be «ascertained to be good and sufficient. When the act directs the sheriffs bond to be made payable to the treasurers of the state, it £an mean no other officers than those called in the constiiution, Art. Sth, " the commissioners of the treasury.'' In art. 10th, "treasurers," and it is immaterial whether they are described by thé one name or the other. We are to regard the meaning of the act, when not inconsistent with the plain, literal import of the words used.
3dly. Again, when the act declares, that before the bond is accepted by the treasurers, it shall have been approved by three commissioners, it can mean no more than to lay down a rule of action to be practised before the treasurers shall accept the bond. The injunction is merely directory, and though the total neglect might possibly have afforded a ground for declaring the sheriffs office'vacated, still as long as he remained in office, he must be regarded as an officer, and his own failure to perfect his security cannot be pleaded in bar against the consequence of his misconduct, in not discharging his official duties. It was for him to provide and to perfect his security, as the act requires expressly of him, (l Faust, p. 1.)
The same observation is a sufficient answer to the third ground taken. It was the duty of the sheriffs to have recorded in the clerk's office, the certificate of the commissioners. Tbis also is required of him by the act, (see 2 Faust, p. 8,J and if he did not do so, neither he nor the securities can take advantage of his wrongful neglect.— They are still bound by their bond, which was given on their part, and accepted by the treasurers. The end in view was to obtain security by bond for the officer: and such a bond as the treasurers have accepted must have been given, and become a binding contract. The approval by the commissioners, the certificate, recording, &e. are, besides, no more than the mere modes of giving, examining and perpetuating the bond. These are not of the essence, and constitute no part of the obligation of the contract.— .The last ground, that the bond is for § 10,000, when the act directs it to be given for # 5,000,1 should have deemed worthy of great consideration, but for a decision of this court in the case of the Treasurers vs. the Securities of William Davis, sheriff of Camden. In that case, the securities were held liable, though the bond of sheriff Davis, varied by $ - from the sum required by the act. And when we reflect that the bond and security ; the approval ; the certificate and recording, are all proved and done by the sheriff after his election, and before he shall enter upon his office ; — that these are all acts required strictly of him in order to ensure his fidélity, we cannot but foresee the great danger of permitting him or his security, deriving advantage from any error or omission, either in the bond or in the manner of giving or recording it.
DeSaussure, for the motion.
,P(ttigru, contra.
The motion is therefore discharged.
Justices Bay, Noli, Huger, Gantt and Johnson, cop-burred.