Griffith v. Commonwealth for use of Hughes
| Decision Date | 06 October 1874 |
| Citation | 73 Ky. 281 |
| Parties | Griffith, & c. v. Com'wealth for use of Hughes, & c. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.
RAY & WALKER, GEO. W. WILLIAMS, For Appellants,
Revised Statutes, chap. 20, art. 4, sec. 2.
Revised Statutes, chap. 36, art. 18, sec. 3.
Revised Statutes, chap. 97, secs. 12, 14.
1 Duvall, 24, Huston v. Hagar.
3 Met 347, Terrill v. Cecil.
SWEENEY & STUART, For Appellees,
CITED
Revised Statutes, chap. 91, sec. 17, 2 Stanton, 343.
Act of March 10, 1856, 2 Stanton, 535.
1 M. & B.'s Statutes, page 690.
Whether or not the facts set forth in the petition are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against appellants as sureties of Harrison in his official bond as sheriff of Daviess County is the first question presented by this record.
After stating the condition of the covenant it is alleged in the petition that " on" or before the 30th day of April, 1858, the plaintiff, Graham Hughes, was clerk of the Daviess County Court, and as such fees had accrued to him from various persons for services rendered as clerk; and that he (the said Hughes) made out as clerk fee-bills against said parties, and on the day aforesaid, and while said Harrison was acting as sheriff of said county, under the bond executed by him and his co-defendants as aforesaid, and while said fee-bills were in full force and distrainable by law, listed the same for collection with said Harrison as sheriff aforesaid, and took his " receipt" therefor, which he files herewith and makes part hereof.
The said fee-bills amounted to the sum of $437.20; and the parties against whom they were issued and the amounts thereof respectively appear in the said receipt, which is referred to, and its statements here fully adopted, which is substantially repeated in reference to two other receipts given by said Harrison, sheriff as aforesaid, and the breaches are then assigned in the following language:
The plaintiff then avers that in January, 1855, he listed fee-bills with said Harrison, sheriff as aforesaid, amounting to $81.40, and in January, 1856, he listed fee-bills with him amounting to two hundred and thirty-five dollars, and took his receipts for the same, which he files; and on the various fee-bills listed as aforesaid said Harrison and his deputies have made payments from time to time, for which they hold his receipts. Of the said Harrison he has received altogether, as he now remembers it, $550.40; and of H. W. Warfield, a deputy, he has received altogether, as he now remembers it two hundred and sixty dollars.
No appropriation was made by said Harrison or Warfield at the time said payments were made, and plaintiff applied them to the two last-mentioned receipts, which paid them off, and there remained to be applied to the receipts sued on the sum of $493.50, and that the balance of said fee-bills remain due and unpaid. Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment for the said fee-bills, together with damages, and for all other just and proper relief.
Sec 19, art. 1, chap. 91, Revised Statutes, 2 Stanton, 343, provides that distress may be made for all officers' fees after the 1st day of May next succeeding the rendering of the services, and the right of distress shall continue for three years from and after it commences, and no longer. Section 17 of the above article and chapter makes it the duty of each...
To continue reading
Request your trial