Riddick v. Governor of the Territory of Missouri

• Citation: 1 Mo. 147
• Parties: RIDDICK & M'NAIR v. GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY OF MISSOURI.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1821
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

1 Mo. 147

RIDDICK & M'NAIR

v.GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY OF MISSOURI.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1821.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS

JONES, J.

This was an action of debt, brought in that Court by the defendant in error, for the use of the county of St. Louis, against the now plaintiffs, on the official bond given by John W. Thompson, late Sheriff of that county, in which they were his securities. The defendants having craved and obtained oyer of the bond and condition, which was, that Thompson should well and truly perform the duties of sheriff of the county to which he was appointed, according to law, to the best of his knowledge and abilities, and make faithful payment of all moneys he might collect, either for the public or individuals, plead performance, generally, of the condition of the said bond. To this plea the plaintiff replied, that Thompson, after the making of the said obligation, and during the time he was such sheriff, to-wit: at a regular term of the Circuit Court of the county of St. Louis, in July, 1820, did not, although often requested, settle his accounts as such sheriff of the said county, with the Circuit Court thereof, contrary to the statute, and the tenor and effect of the condition of the said bond. To this replication, there was a general demurrer and joinder, and the Circuit Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, for the penalty of the bond, $7,500; to reverse this judgment, this writ of error was brought.

The plaintiffs in error insisted, that the breach assigned in the replication is not without the condition of the bond, and that the act of July, 1813 (Geyer's Digest 372), which defines the powers and duties of sheriffs, makes it no part of their duties to settle their accounts with the Circuit, or any other Court The defendant in error contended, that, by a subsequent act, passed in January, 1815 (Geyer's Digest 348), the sheriffs of the several counties were appointed assessors and collectors of the county revenue, in their respective counties; and it was, by that act, made their duties to settle with the Courts of the proper county, at every regular term, and that, therefore, a neglect o refusal on the part of Thompson to make such settlement, at the term mentioned in the replication, was a breach of the condition of the bond. This was denied by the counsel for the plaintiffs, who contended that an action could not be sustained on this bond, for such breach, by the last act cited, because it is further provided by that act, that if any sheriff should neglect or refuse to settle with the Court as aforesaid, he should, for every such neglect or refusal, pay for the use of the county for which he was sheriff. $100, to be recovered in the Circuit Court, in the name of the Justices of the County (now Circuit) Court, on motion of the Circuit Attorney, the sheriff having ten days previous notice, and for which sum and costs an execution should be issued as in other cases;...