¶1Theee can be no doubt but it is the election which gives title to the office, and from that period the term of office commences, although the sheriff elect cannot act until he has given bond and qualified according to law. But as between the parties to the suit, (in order that there may not be a chasm in the administration of justice,) we are inclined to recognize the principle that the acts of a sheriff de facto are valid. When the writ was executed, Coleman, by virtue of his election, was entitled to the office, yet Slaughter originally came into the office by a lawful title, and continued to perform its duties, and Coleman, the person most interested in complaining, acted as his deputy. As to the public, and between the parties to the suit, we must say, that under these circumstances, the service of the writ was not void, and are unanimous in affirming the judgement.
1 Stew. 182
Garner v. Clay
Decided January 15, 1827
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1827-01-15
Debt in the Circuit Court of Limestone county by defendants against plaintiff in error. The writ of capias was returned “Executed 7th October, 1822. James Slaughter, sheriff, by Ruffin-Coleman, deputy sheriff.” Garner plead in abatement that the writ was not executed by the sheriff, or any other lawful officer of said county, and that Slaughter was not, at the date when it purports to have been executed, the sheriff of said county.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1875
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1827-01-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →