Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Va. 81

Munford v. Rice

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided January 23, 1818

Supreme Court of Virginia · decided 1818-01-23

ON a motion by James II. ~1Iunford late Hig~l' Sheriff of Nottoway County, against 3 ames Rice, and sundry persons his sureties, it appeared (iuier alia,) from the notice and several bills of exceptions, that the plaintiff's motion was for the amount of a Jwlginent obtained against: himself, in behalf of the Commonwealth, for part of the Revenue Taxes in the said County for the year 1815, which the defendant Rice, as his deputy, had collected and failed to pay into the…

Decided 1818-01-23

¶1January 23d, 1818, Judge Roane pronounced the Court’s Opinion.

The Court

¶2is of opinion that this case does not come withing 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.

¶3*83On 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.

/6/va/81 · .json · Public domain