Case Name: Munford v. Rice and Others
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1818-01-23
Citations: 6 Munf. 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: Munford v. Rice and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
Munford v. Rice and Others.
Decided, Jan. 23, 1818.
I. Deputy Sheriff — Bond of — How Long Binding, — A Bond from the Deputy to the High Sheriff, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duty as deputy, “during his continuance in office,” without specifying the length of time, is binding on him and his sureties for the transactions of one year only.
On a motion by James H. Munford late High Sheriff of Nottaway County, against James Rice, and sundry persons his sureties, it appeared (inter alia,) from the notice and several bills of exceptions, that the plaintiff’s motion was for the amount of a Judgment obtained against himself, in behalf of the Commonwealth, for part of the Revenue Taxes in the said Count}' for the year 1815, which the defendant Rice, as his deputy, had collected and failed to pay into the public Treasury within the time required by law; that the bond given by the said Rice and his sureties, bore date the 10th of October 1813, and was conditioned for performance of his duty, indemnifying the said James H. Munford, &c., “during his continuance in office,” without specifying the length of time; that the said Bond was executed in consequence of the appointment and qualification of the said Rice as Deputy Sheriff in October 1813; that he did not continue in office more than one year, under that appointment, but was appointed again on the 6th of October 1814, to act *as deputy Sheriff for another year; that the said Munford the High Sheriff, also, did not continue in office longer than one year under his first appointment, but, at the end of the first year, was again commissioned and qualified; viz, on the same 6th day of October 1814. The sureties therefore contended, that the said Munford could not delegate to the said Rice an authority to act as deputy Sheriff for a longer period of time than his own office continued; and, consequently, that the said bond could not be binding upon them for the second year in which the said Rice acted as the deputy of the said Mun-ford; and that there was nothing in the said bond to shew their intention to be bound for such second year.
The County Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, which, upon an appeal to the Superior Court of law, was reversed, and. judgment was ordered to be entered for the defendants; whereupon the plaintiff appealed to this Court.
Wickham for the appellant.
May and Leigh for the appellees.
Deputy Sheriff — Bond of — How Long: Binding. — In Jacobs v. Hill, 2 Leigh 393, 397, Cabb, J., who delivered the opinion of the court, reviewed the cases of Com.' v. Fairfax, 4 Hen. and M. 298; Royster v. Leake, 2 Munf. 280, and Munford v. Hice, 6 Munf. 81, and deduced therefrom the conclusion that the contract of the sheriff and his deputy being a private affair, not regulated as to its continuance by law, may be either for one or two years. In this case (Jacobs v. Hill), a bond was executed to a sheriff, during the first year of his shrievalty by a deputy sheriff and his sureties, the condition whereof recited.that the sheriff had been commissioned sheriff and that the deputy had undertaken the duties of the said office for and during* the time the sheriff might continue in office. It was held that the contract was a deputation of the office not only for the first but for the second year also of the shrievalty, and that the sureties were bound for the conduct of the deputy during* both years. The principal case is also cited on this subject in Cecil v. Early, 10 Gratt. 205; Tyler v. Nelson, 14 Gratt. 222,223. See further, on this subject, monographic note on “Sheriffs and Constables’,’ appended to Goode v. Galt, Gilm. 152; monographic note on “Official Bonds” appended to Sangsterv. Com., 17 Gratt. 124.
Note. It appears that the marginal Epitome pi. 1, to the case of Royster v. Leake, 2 Munf. 280, is not correctly expressed. It should be as follows: —“A Bond from the deputy to the High Sheriff, dated November 15th, 1802, and conditioned for the faithful performance of his duty as deputy, “during his continuance in office, until November Court 1804,” was adjudged binding upon him and his sureties, for the second year as well as the first, and until the winding up of the business lawfully committed to him as deputy.” — Note in Original Edition.

Opinion:
January 23d, 1818,
JUDGE ROANE
pronounced the Court's Opinion.
The Court is of opinion that this case does not come within the decision of the Court, in the case of Royster v. Leake; in which the condition of the bond stated that the deputy Sheriff was to act as such until Goochland November Court 1804, and that stipulation was considered as added to, and extending the expression, "during his continuance in office," beyond the year for which his principal was first appointed; and which, in this private contract between the Sheriff and his Deputy, it was competent for them to do. That stipulation is wanting in the case before us; and this case falls within the principles of that of Fairfax v. the Commonwealth, 4 H. & M. 208, in which the expression aforesaid was limited to the first year. The Court is also of opinion, that it is not natural to give, to this general expression in the bond of the Deputy Sheriff, an extension beyond the term for which , his principal himself held his office. "On this ground, and not deciding any other point occurring in the case, the Court is of opinion to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.