Case Name: MRS. LAWRENCE GOWENS, Widow of LAWRENCE GOWENS, Deceased; MARY RUTH GOWENS, THEO GOWENS, ALFRED GOWENS, JUANITA GOWENS and CAROL GOWENS, Children, v. ALAMANCE COUNTY, H. J. STOCKARD, Sheriff of ALAMANCE COUNTY; and HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1939-06-16
Citations: 216 N.C. 107
Docket Number: 
Parties: MRS. LAWRENCE GOWENS, Widow of LAWRENCE GOWENS, Deceased; MARY RUTH GOWENS, THEO GOWENS, ALFRED GOWENS, JUANITA GOWENS and CAROL GOWENS, Children, v. ALAMANCE COUNTY, H. J. STOCKARD, Sheriff of ALAMANCE COUNTY; and HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY.
Judges: ScheNck, J., concurs in this opinion.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 216
Pages: 107–113

Head Matter:
MRS. LAWRENCE GOWENS, Widow of LAWRENCE GOWENS, Deceased; MARY RUTH GOWENS, THEO GOWENS, ALFRED GOWENS, JUANITA GOWENS and CAROL GOWENS, Children, v. ALAMANCE COUNTY, H. J. STOCKARD, Sheriff of ALAMANCE COUNTY; and HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY.
(Filed 16 June, 1939.)
1. Sheriffs § 2—
While the office of sheriff is provided for by Art. IY, sec. 24, of the State Constitution, the right of the sheriff to appoint deputies is a common law right and deputies appointed by the sheriff are public officers, but their duties and authority relate only to ministerial duties imposed by law upon the sheriff, in the performance of which they act for the sheriff in his name and right.
2. Jails § 1—
The duties of a jailer are those prescribed by statute and those recognized by common law, and he has no authority by virtue of his office to serve processes or make arrests except, perhaps, in preventing an escape.
3. Same — Positions of deputy sheriff and jailer are separate and distinct.
Where a person appointed by the sheriff as a deputy is also appointed by him as jailer, and subsequent to an act authorizing the county commissioners to designate the jailer (Public-Local Laws of 1935, ch. 201) the commissioners permit him to continue his employment as jailer and pay him the salary fixed by the commissioners, such person necessarily acts either in his capacity as deputy sheriff by appointment of the sheriff or as jailer by virtue of his employment by the county, the two positions being separate and distinct.
4. Master and Servant § 39d — Evidence held insufficient to support finding that employee was injured and killed in the course of his employment as jailer.
The evidence tended to show that the deceased employee had been appointed by the sheriff as a deputy and had been employed by the county as jailer, that while in the jail he was advised that a man in the vicinity of the jail had shot his wife, that he left the jail and was killed while attempting to arrest- the man as he was preparing to flee. Held,: In attempting to make the arrest the employee was acting in his capacity as deputy sheriff, such act being outside the scope of his employment as jailer, and the evidence is insufficient to support a finding by the Industrial Commission that he was fatally injured in an- accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as jailer.
Clarkson, J., dissenting.
Devin, J., dissenting.
Schenok, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of Devin, J.
Appeal by defendants from Sinclair, Emergency Judge, at January-February Term, 1939, of AlamaNCE.
Reversed.
Proceeding under North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act to determine liability of defendants to plaintiff, an employee of Alamance County.
This cause was here at the Spring Term, 1938, and was remanded, with directions that the Industrial Commission clarify an alternative finding that the deceased either as a deputy sheriff or as jailer, or in the dual capacity of deputy sheriff-jailer, suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his death, by definitely finding whether the deceased suffered such injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as jailer.
Pursuant to an order of remand by the court below in accord with the opinion of this Court, Gowens v. Alamance County, 214 N. 0., 18, and after notice to the parties, the Industrial Commission entered its opinion in which it is stated :
“The full commission, after reviewing the evidence and file in this case, now finds as a fact that the said Lawrence Gowens did suffer an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as jailer on July 31, 1936, resulting in his death.
“This finding is made as a supplement and in addition to the findings heretofore made and set out in the record.” Thereupon an award was made and the defendants appealed. When the cause came on to be heard in the Superior Court the court below sustained the finding of the commission and affirmed the judgment awarding compensation to plaintiffs. Defendants excepted and appealed.
Long, Long & Barrett for plaintiffs, appellees.
George D. Taylor and B. M. Bobinson for defendants, appellants.

Opinion:
Barnhill, J.
Upon the rehearing the Industrial Commission adopted and reaffirmed its former findings. They now stand as the findings in this cause except as they are modified by the conclusion of the Commission that the deceased at the time of his injury and death was acting as jailer.
In the opinion of the hearing commissioner, ajiproved by the full commission, we find the following resume of the evidence, to wit: "The evidence discloses that on the day Lawrence Gowens was killed he was at the jail about his duties, and was called to come immediately to the home of one Bob Campbell, who lived just two doors from the jail, nearly in the back yard of the jail, and was advised that the said Campbell had shot his wife. The deceased went immediately to the home of said Bob Campbell where the wife of Campbell had been seriously wounded by a gunshot inflicted upon her by her husband, Bob Campbell, and he, Deputy Sheriff Gowens, the deceased, thereupon found Campbell armed with a shotgun and in the act of leaving his home, and when the deceased attempted to arrest the said Campbell and deter him from fleeing, he was fatally shot by Campbell, from which injuries he died within a short while thereafter."
In the original award the commission held that deceased acted in a dual capacity and undertook to treat the positions held by him as one. It concluded that he acted either in the capacity of deputy sheriff,in charge of the jail or as jailer authorized to perform the duties of a deputy sheriff.
While these two offices, or positions, are usually held by one person for convenience and efficiency, they are separate and distinct. The Constitution provides for the office of sheriff. N. C. Const., Art. IV, sec. 24. There is no constitutional authority for' appointment of deputies sheriff. The right of the sheriff to appoint deputies is a common law right. "The deputy is an officer coeval in point of antiquity with the sheriff." Lanier v. Greenville, 174 N. C., 311, 93 S. E., 850; Borders v. Cline, 212 N. C., 472, 193 S. E., 826. He is the deputy of the sheriff, one appointed to act ordinarily for the sheriff and not in his own name, person or right, and although ordinarily appointed by the sheriff, is considered a public officer. 57 C. J., 731, Sec. 4. The duties and authority of a deputy sheriff relate only to the ministerial duties imposed by law upon the sheriff. Borders v. Cline, supra.
Likewise, the position of jailer is one of common law origin and has existed from time immemorial. The statute, C. S., 3944, provides that: "The sheriff shall have the care and custody of the jail in his county; and shall be, or appoint, the keeper thereof." The duties of the jailer are those prescribed by statute and such as were recognized at common law.
In Alamance County, until 1935, the sheriff had the right to appoint the jailer under the provisions of C. S., 3944, and of ch. 559, Public-Local Laws 1927. The Legislature, by ch. 201, Public-Local Laws 1935, repealed ch. 559, Public Laws 1927, and vested in the Board of Commissioners of Alamance County "full power and authority to name and designate the jailer and such other assistants as in the opinion of said board shall be necessary to properly maintain, operate and supervise the said jail and the inmates therein, and to prescribe the rules and regulations and general policies of such operation, maintenance and supervision of said jail, and to prescribe the duties of the said jailer and his assistants."
After the enactment of eh. 201, Public-Local Laws 1935, the commissioners of Alamance County permitted the deceased, who had theretofore been appointed jailer by the sheriff, to continue his employment as such without any new appointment. They paid him his salary fixed by the commissioners and the turnkey fees allowed by law. The mere fact that they did not specifically reappoint him did not affect his posi tion as an employee of tbe county from and after tbe enactment of tbe recited statute.
We have been unable to find in tbe common law, or in tbe decisions or statutes of tbis State, any declaration or provision wbicb could be interpreted as vesting in tbe jailer any authority to serve process or make arrests. Whenever be undertook to do so, except perhaps in attempting to recapture a prisoner who bad escaped from bis custody, of necessity, be was acting in bis capacity as deputy sheriff, and not as jailer.
There is no such position as deputy sheriff-jailer known to tbe law. When tbe deceased undertook to act in given instances be was acting either as jailer by virtue of bis employment by tbe county, or as deputy sheriff under bis appointment by tbe sheriff.
As stated in tbe original findings of tbe commission, when tbe deceased went to tbe scene of tbe shooting and found Campbell, tbe man who bad shot bis wife, armed with a shotgun and in tbe act of leaving bis home, "Deputy Sheriff Gowens, tbe deceased," attempted to arrest him. In so doing he was acting in bis capacity as a deputy sheriff. If be was undertaking to act in bis capacity as jailer, then bis act in attempting to arrest Campbell was entirely outside tbe scope of bis employment as jailer, and tbe injuries be received in attempting to make tbe arrest did not arise out of or in tbe course of bis employment by tbe county as such. No other conclusion is permissible.
That be was undertaking to act as deputy sheriff is not only supported by tbe specific findings of fact by tbe commission, but by other evidence in tbe record wbicb tends to show that a person nearby called to tbe wife of tbe deceased, informed her of tbe shooting, and inquired for the sheriff. In consequence of tbe information and tbe inquiry for tbe sheriff, bis deputy, tbe deceased, as it was bis duty to do as deputy sheriff, responded.
In tbe liability policy issued by tbe defendant tbe deceased was named as an employee of tbe county. He received an injury wbicb caused bis death. If tbe fact that, although tbe deceased was insured, be cannot recover, makes tbis appear as a bard case, we must bear in mind that tbe defendant Indemnity Company contracted to pay only in tbe event tbe defendant county was liable.
As there is no evidence in tbe record to support tbe conclusion that tbe deceased suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in tbe course of bis employment as jailer, tbe judgment below must be
Reversed.