Case Name: Peter Dowell v. Joel Vannoy
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-06
Citations: 3 Dev. 23
Docket Number: 
Parties: Peter Dowell v. Joel Vannoy.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 23–24

Head Matter:
Peter Dowell v. Joel Vannoy.
Whe re a sheriff executes a writ, and permits the defendant to go at large, under a promise to give bail to a deputy ; Hie latter is not lia-ablc to the sheriff for an escape of the defendant.
Assumpsit, and upon the general issue, the case was, that the plaintiff was sheriff of Wilkes, and received a writ at the instance of one Gilí, against one Shackelford, returnable to Iredell .Superior Court — that the plaintiff arrested Shackelford, and permitted Mm to go in search of hail; informing him that the writ would be left in the hands of the defendant, who was deputy sheriff, and to whom he, Shackelford, might give hail — and the plaintiff directed the defendant to return the writ and bail hosid to Iredell Superior Court. Shackelford absconded without giving bail, and the plaintiff was fixed by Gill ag Spec|a¡ bail, and brought this suit upon the implied promise of the defendant faithfully to perform his duty as deputy sheriff, and indemnify him against the consequences of Ms acts or omissions.
His Honor Judge Dantee charged the jury, that as the plaintiff gave Shackelford permission to look for hail, and bring the bail when procured to the defendant to he bound, the deputy was not liable in this action, unless he had orders to re-take Shackelford, in case bail was not given, before the return day of the writ.
Á verdict was returned for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
The case was submitted without argument, by Badger for the plaintiff, and Gaston, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Haul, Judge,
after stating the case as above, pro-
ceeded : I think it is only necessary to read the statement, to discover, that whatever error whs committed in the case, was the error of the plaintiff himself. He indulged Shackelford, and not the defendant. The "latter only acted in conformity to his instructions. There is certainly no ground upon which a new trial should be granted. -
Per Curiam — Judgment aeeirmed.