Case Name: The Treasurers vs. The Ex'ors. M'Pherson; The same vs. the same
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1841-12
Citations: 2 McMul. 69
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Treasurers vs. The Ex’ors. M’Pherson. The same vs. the same.
Judges: We concur: J. S. Richardson, Josiah J. Evans, B. J. Earle, A. P. Butler, D. L. Warlaw.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 69–70

Head Matter:
The Treasurers vs. The Ex’ors. M’Pherson. The same vs. the same.
After the lapse of twenty years, the conditions of a Sheriff’s bond willbe presumed to have been performed.
Before O’Neall, J. at Gittisonvitte Beaufort district, Spring Term, 1841.
These were actions of the debt on the official bonds of Deveaux, Ford and Ferguson, former Sheriffs. They were brought to recover sums received by them for the State, and with which they were respectively charged on the books of the Treasury, more than twenty years before action brought. The only question made in the cases was whether, after a lapse of twenty years, performance of the duties, conditioned to be performed in an official bond, would be presumed. The presiding Judge held, that it would. The plaintiffs submitted to verdicts for the defendants and appealed.
Because the Court erred in deciding that, after a lapse of twenty years, performance of the duties conditioned to be performed, in an official bond, would be presumed.
Edwards, Solicitor, for the motion. Singleton, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per
O'Neall J.
. We are satisfied with the decision of the Judge below. It has been again and again ruled;,that the presumption of performance of the condition, upon an official bond, from the lapse of time, will arise, as well as the presumption of payment of a money bond. It is no objection that the State is the party against whom the presumption is set up. It is'true, that the maxim "nullum tern-pus occurrit regi," applies to the State, but by that I understand that the King, in England, and the State, here, cannot be barred by the statute, of limitations. A legal presumption is not set up as a statutory bar. It is a legal conclusion after the lapse of twenty years (without some countervailing proof,) that a fact then existed,- (which cannot now be proved,) sufficient to defeat the right of the State. Such as that the State, twenty years ago, granted a tract of land, or received the money charged on the books of the Treasury against Sheriffs, Ford and Ferguson. The motion is dismissed.
JOHN BELTON O'NEALL. .
We concur: J. S. Richardson, Josiah J. Evans, B. J. Earle, A. P. Butler, D. L. Warlaw.