Case Name: Alexander McCarley, Executor, vs. W. G. Davis, J. S. Osborne, and Wm. Vance
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1840-12
Citations: 1 McMul. 34
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alexander McCarley, Executor, vs. W. G. Davis, J. S. Osborne, and Wm. Vance.
Judges: Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, EaRle, JJ., concurred : Gantt, J., absent.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 22–24

Head Matter:
Alexander McCarley, Executor, vs. W. G. Davis, J. S. Osborne, and Wm. Vance.
A Prison Pounds’ Pond becomes forfeited, against all the parties to it when the principal forfeits his rights to the benefits of the law under which it was taken; and the liability of the securities is fixed, as soon as the plaintiff acquires his right to the bond by assignment.
The amount of recovery is the amount of the debt on which the defendant was confined.
Before Butler, J., at Laurens, Fall Term, 1840.
This was an action of debt on prison bounds’ bond. The common breaches were assigned, and the defendants, Osborne and Vance pleaded to the declaration — first, a special plea to this effect, that after the execution of the bond, and before its assignment to plaintiff, Davis, the principal to the bond, had been remanded to jail by the plaintiff, which was a discharge of his securities. To this plea, there was a general demurrer, which I sustained, holding that the plaintiff had no control over Davis, until after the finding of a jury, that his schedule was fraudulent, or that he had gone beyond the bounds ; and that after such finding, Davis was properly committed, and that his sureties could not be discharged thereby. The second *plea was performance, upon which plaintiff took issue. Bond and assignment admitted, the first dated 1th February, 1839, and the other 29th June, 1839. The plaintiff then offered the following evidence : Verdicit of special jury on a suggestion of fraud, tried before the Commissioner of Special Bail, under the Act of the Legislature of 1833 — “We find the schedule is fraudulent, on the ground that Davis has not included in his schedule his interest in Mississippi, in the concern of Davis & Hill ” From this verdict there was an appeal, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeals. The last piece of evidence introduced by plaintiff, was the ca. sa. under which Davis had been confined, and the amount of the recovery endorsed thereon, to wit : $953 34, with interest from the 1st of November, 1838.
The defendants contended that the verdict against Davis was not conclusive against them, and they offered to go into evidence to show, 1st, that Davis had included in his schedule all his property, and to show that he had inserted in it all his interest in the Mississippi concern. 2d. That if any thing was omitted, to show the value of it, with a view of reducing the damages. 3rd. To show that some of the jury who tried the question of fraud before the special jury, would swear that they did not notice or take into their consideration that part of Davis’ assignment which refers to or concerns the Mississippi partnership.
I refused to receive any of the evidence that was offered, holding that defendant’s liability was conclusively fixed by the finding of the jury— that as soon as it was ascertained that Davis had forfeited his right to the prison bounds, or to be discharged, all the parties to his bond became bound for the amount of the recovery against him ; and that that amount could not be reduced, by showing the amount of the property omitted from the schedule.
The plaintiff accordingly took his verdict for the amount of the judgment against him, upon which the ca. sa. had issued — which was the sum of $953 34, with interest, &c.
Prom this decision the defendants appeal, on the annexed grounds :
*1. Because the finding of the special jury on the schedule of Davis, was not conclusive against the defendants, his sureties to the bond.
2. Because it was competent for the defendant to show the value of the property omitted in the schedule, with a view of reducing the recovery.

Opinion:
Curia per
Butler, J.
The grounds taken in the appeal resolve themselves into this proposition — have the securities on a prison bounds' bond the right to question the finding of the jury against their principal, establishing the fact that he had forfeited his right to the jail rules or bounds, under the prison bounds' Act, by rendering a false and fraudulent schedule ? Or, in other words, whether the bond becomes forfeited against all the parties to it, when the principal forfeits his rights to the benefit of the law under which it was taken. The securities undertake, by the bond, that their principal will remain within the prison bounds, and that he will, within forty days, render in to the Clerk of the Court a true and honest schedule of his effects ; otherwise that they will pay the debt on which the principal has been confined.
By the 7th clause of the Act it is provided, " that any prisoner committed on execution aforesaid, who shall not give in such schedule, (that is, a true schedule,) agreeably to the tenor of his or her bond, shall not be any longer entitled to the prison rules, but his bond shall be forfeited and assigned to the plaintiff," &c. And in the latter part of the same clause, it is provided how the forfeiture shall be ascertained, to wit : by a jury, &c. When, therefore, the securities signed the bond, they were not only well aware of the nature and extent of their obligation, but of the manner in which their liability was to be fixed, to wit: by a decision against their principal. This decision must form a part of the contract; for, upon such decision, the plaintiff acquires his right to the bond, by an assignment from the Sheriff; the very object of such assignment being to enable the plaintiff to recover against all the parties. The plaintiff's right to the bond, and the defendant's liability to pay it, would seem to be co-extensive ; and that one is established as soon as the other is lawfully acquired. According to these views, the liability of the defendants was conclusively fixed by the finding of the jury against Davis. The right of recovery being established, the extent of it followed * which was the amount of the debt on which Davis had been confined. The opinion of the Court, therefore, is that the decision below was, in every respect, correct and it is affirmed.
See Harley v. Nelson, 2 Strob. 169. 10 Rich. 80. An.
Young and Irby, for the motion. Sullivan, contra.
The motion Of defendants is therefore dismissed.
Richardson, O'Neall, Evans, EaRle, JJ., concurred : Gantt, J., absent.
5 Stat. 78. An.