¶1 The defendants insist that their bond shall bo interpreted by the rules which govern the construction of the official bonds of a high sheriff, drawn in pursuance of the statute, specifying what bonds shall be given and the conditions of the same.
¶2 But there is a wide difference between them in almost every respect. The one is an official bond of a public officer, the form and conditions of which are fixed by law; the other is the private bond of an individual, for which no form is prescribed and in which any conditions may be inserted which will carry out the intents of the parties. No one can doubt that the intention of the parties, in inserting, among others, the condition that the defendant “ shall due return make thereof of all moneys received by him, and in all respects execute faithfully, and fully discharge the duties of said office and pay over all moneys that may come into his hands as deputy sheriff, when and to whom it properly belongs,” &c., was to make the defendant liable for all such breaches as are assigned in the plaintiff’s complaint.
¶3 The collection of taxes is the common and ordinary work of a deputy sheriff. The high sheriff appoints his deputies and is responsible for their action. He appoints them generally or specially, with or -without bond, as he sees fit, and if he takes a bond it is a matter between him and his deputy, with which the public has no concern.
¶4 We are of opinion that the breaches assigned are embraced in the conditions of the bond.
¶5 The judgment of the Superior Court; is affirmed.
¶6 Let this be certified.
¶7 Pbb CukiaM. Judgment affirmed.