Case Name: Joel C. Dubose v. Nathan Hanks, et. al.
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1830-12
Citations: 2 Bail. 13
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joel C. Dubose v. Nathan Hanks, et. al.
Judges: O’Neall J. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
Joel C. Dubose v. Nathan Hanks, et. al.
A sheriff may, by virtue of his office, maintain an action on a bond for the payment of money, made to his predecessor, “ and his successors in office,” without an assignment from the original obligee.
Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Darlington, Fall Term, 1830.
Debt on bond for the payment of money. The bond had been made to “ Benjamin Dubose, Sheriff of Darlington District, and his successors in office.” And the declaration alleged that the plaintiff was successor in office of the said Benjamin Dubose. On general demurrer judgment was rendered for the plaintiff; and the defendant now moved to reverse the decision of the presiding Judge.
Blanding, for motion.
A sheriff cannot maintain an action on a contract made with his predecessor, although of an official character — Underwood v. Jacobs, 3 McC. 447. The case of Loker v. Antonio, 4 McC. 175, related to the assignment of a bail bond, and cannot apply to the case of a bond for the mere payment of money. At common law, no one could sue on a bond, but the obligee, or his personal representatives. An act of assembly was necessary to enable the assignee to bring suit in his own name; but there is no act authorizing a third person to sue without an assignment. It would create great confusion, inconvenience, and uncertainty, as to the responsibility of sheriffs, if the practice were permitted.
Wilkins, contra.
The inconvenience and uncertainty suggested, are altogether imaginary. Each sheriff is responsible for his own defaults, and for nothing more: There is no complication of responsibilities. When a sheriff is ordered to make a sale, he is bound to take the bond in his official character, otherwise he makes the debt his own ; and the law requires him to transfer all his official papers to his successor. He cannot himself sue upon an official bond after 'the expiration of his office ; and unless his successor can do so, then no one can sue, and the obligor is discharged. The case of Loker v. Antonio, is conclusive of the question.

Opinion:
Harper J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case of Loker v. Antonio, 4 M'C. 175, has settled that a bail-bond given to á sheriff and his sucessors, passes to a successor without any assignment of the former sheriff. It is not doubted but that the principle of the decision extends to all official bonds taken by the sheriff. This is plain from the grounds on which the decision rests, namely, the act of assembly requiring sheriffs to turn over their books and papers to their successors in office. This applies equally to all books and papers which they hold as sheriffs. It was supposed, however, that being merely a bond for money, this could not be regarded as an official bond. 1 do not know of any case in England in which a sheriff could be officially required to take a mere bond for money. The case is different here. Under the several acts authorizing sales of real estate for partition, sales under attachment, and sales of mortgaged property, the sheriff is required to take bonds for money.' It is certain that there may be official bonds of this description; and we think that the bond in question being made payable to the sheriff or his successors, sufficiently purports to be such a one. It is not to be supposed that a sheriff will take in this form, or turn over to his successor a bond personal to himself. We think that we are bound by the case referred to, and that the motion to reverse the decision below, must be overruled.
Motion refused.
O'Neall J. concurred.
Johnson J. absent from indisposition.