Hughes v. Newsom
| Decision Date | 28 February 1882 |
| Citation | 86 N.C. 424 |
| Parties | W. H. HUGHES v. J. W. NEWSOM and others. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
CIVIL ACTION tried at January Special Term, 1882, of NORTHAMPTON Superior Court, before Graves, J.
This action is brought on the official bond of the defendant, Newsom, as sheriff of Northampton county, given in 1873, and on which the other defendants were his sureties. The case was submitted to the judge upon the following state of facts:
On the 19th of March, 1873, the plaintiff commenced an action for claim and delivery for certain horses, against one Capehart, returnable to the spring term of said superior court, and on the same day procured an order to be issued to said sheriff commanding him to take the horses from the possession of Capehart and deliver them to the plaintiff. The sheriff immediately executed the order, so far as to take the horses into his possession, but returned the same to Capehart upon his giving to him an undertaking, not, as the statute directs, for the delivery of the property to the plaintiff in case such delivery should be so adjudged, or for the payment of such sum as might be recovered against him in the action, but merely to save harmless and indemnify the sheriff from all loss on account of his having so restored the property to him.
This action for claim and delivery pended in said court until January term, 1878, when the plaintiff had a judgment against Capehart for the possession of the horses, or, in case of their non-delivery, for the sum of $140 as their value, and for damages for their detention, and for costs, under which he caused an execution to issue, which was returned nulla bona.
On the 11th of September, 1879, the plaintiff brought this action, assigning as a breach of the condition of said official bond, the failure of the sheriff to take from Capehart such an undertaking as the statute directed, before restoring to him the possession of the horses. The defence relied upon is the statute limiting the time within which actions shall be brought upon bonds of public officers to six years.
Upon the foregoing facts the court held that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the statute, and gave judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed.
Mr. R. B. Peebles, for plaintiff .
Messrs. S. J. Wright and Willis Bagley, for defendants .
This court can perceive no error in the ruling of the court below. The instrument taken by the sheriff from Capehart (the defendant in the original action) was in direct violation of the duty, which as an officer he owed to the plaintiff; besides that, it was void on the ground of public policy, as being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mast v. Sapp
... ... though its consequences in the way of damage still go on. The ... case just put is like that we find in Hughes v ... Newsom, 86 N.C. 424, where it was said that the wrong or ... default of the sheriff, when once committed, was absolute and ... complete, ... ...
-
Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 463
...although injury may result from it within the period of limitation.' In this connection, see Baucum v. Streater, 50 N.C. 70; Hughes v. Newsom, 86 N.C. 424; Daniel v. Grizzard, 117 N.C. 105, 23 S.E. 93; Bank of Spruce Pine v. McKinney, 209 N.C. 668, 184 S.E. 506. In decisions from other juri......
- McAdoo v. Callum Bros. & Co.
-
Shackelford Et Ux v. Staton
...the intervening time, or within three years after he ceased to be clerk, and not later. This case is distinguishable from that of Hughes v. Newsom, 86 N. C. 424. There the defendant sheriff, on an order directed to him by the clerk, in a suit for the recovery of personal property (horses), ......