Larned v. Allen

Decided September 15, 1816

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1816-09-15

This was an action of debt upon a bond made to the plaintiff, as sheriff of the county of Berkshire, by the defendants, as sureties for one Root, whom the plaintiff had appointed to be one of his deputies. In a case agreed by the parties, the bond was recited, bearing date the 30th of January, 1812, and conditioned, among other things, to indemnify and save harmless the plaintiff, his heirs, &c., from all actions, suits, judgments, and executions, which might be commenced or recovered against him, by reason of any neglect, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or misdoing of the said Root in his said office of deputy sheriff. It was also agreed in the case, that four warrants ot * distress, issued by the treasurer of the Commonwealth, against delinquent collectors of taxes in this county, all dated the 16th of March, 1812, were delivered by the plaintiff, on the 1st of April then next, to the said Root, to be by him collected and returned, according to the precepts thereof; the amount thereof being $489.83, the whole of which was collected by said Root; who neglected to return the warrants, converted the money to his own use, and absconded from the Commonwealth. In May, 1812, the plaintiff resigned his office of sheriff; and Ihnry C. Brown, Esq., was thereupon duly appointed to the said office, and on the 27th of the same May appointed the said Root his deputy. It appeared that Root had collected, on the said warrants, the sum of $236.32, before the said 27th of May, and the residue he collected after said day. The treasurer of the Commonwealth had called on the plaintiff, and held him accountable for the money so collected by Root; and it was agreed by the defendants, that the plaintiff’s claim in this action should be considered by the Court in the same manner as if the treasurer had obtained a judgment against him for such sum as he in law would be holden to pay for Roofs misdoings in this respect. Judgment was to be entered in this action according to the opinion of the Court upon the facts agreed, upon a nonsuit of the plaintiff, or the default of the defendants.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1907

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1816-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court.

¶1Two questions are made in this case ; whethei the defendants are liable at all within the condition of their bond and, if it all, for how much, as it appears that part only of the money embezzled by Root was actually collected by him during the plaintiff’s sheriffalty.

¶2And we are clearly of opinion, that they are responsible for the whole of the deficiency stated in the case. When the warrants were put into the hands of Root, he was the deputy of the plaintiff; and his power to complete the execution of them continued, by virtue of the plaintiff’s deputation. The successor of the plaintiff could never be answerable for this misconduct. He had no means of even knowing that such precepts had been delivered to Root, who was responsible to the plaintiff in the same manner and degree as if he had not been reappointed by the succeeding sheriff.

¶3Defendants defaulted.