Scott v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 27 April 1897 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. RYAN ET AL. [1] |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Morgan county; H. C. Speake, Judge.
Action by John F. Scott against Silas P. Ryan and the sureties on his official bond as sheriff, for damages for taking and approving an insufficient forthcoming bond. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
W. R Francis and Kirk & Almon, for appellant.
Speake & Russell, for appellees.
We feel constrained to hold that the complaint in this cause does not contain a substantial cause of action, and will not support a judgment. It is an action against the sheriff and his sureties for a breach of his official bond, and the breaches assigned are alleged improper performance of judicial acts by the sheriff, viz. erroneously determining the value of the property, in fixing the penalty of a forthcoming bond which it became his duty to take, and in misjudging the solvency and sufficiency of the sureties accepted by him. That these are acts judicial in their nature, and that the officer is not liable to a civil action for the manner of his performance of them, even though he acts corruptly, is without the pale of controversy. Unlike, in the cases of the approval of official bonds and the approval of the bonds of executors, administrators and guardians by judges of probate wherein liability for taking insufficient security is fixed by statute, there is no statute imposing such liability upon sheriffs in respect of the bonds they are authorized to take in judicial proceedings. They are civilly liable only for the manner of their performance of their ministerial duties. Lester v. The Governor, 12 Ala. 624; McGrew v The Governor, 19 Ala. 89; Matthews v. Sands, 29 Ala. 136; Ex parte Harris, 52 Ala. 87; Busteed v. Parsons, 54 Ala. 393; Irion v. Lewis, 56 Ala. 190; Woodruff v. Stewart, 63 Ala. 206.
That the statute which requires bond of a sheriff, and describes the effect thereof (Code, § 273), does not impose upon that officer and his sureties civil liability for the manner of his judicial acts, is not only apparent upon the face of the provisions themselves, but the principle was so adjudged in the case of Irion v. Lewis, supra. See, also McGrew v. The Governor, supra. The purpose of the third subdivision of section 273 of the Code was to enlarge the liability of the officer and his sureties, by extending it to acts which were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Bass
...even if he acts corruptly." Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Brandon, 297 F.2d 928, 932 (5th Cir. 1962). Accord, Scott v. Ryan, 115 Ala. 587, 589, 22 So. 284, 285 (1897); see Hometrust Life Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 298 F.2d 379, 385 (5th Cir. 1962). We cannot e......
-
Pickett v. Richardson
... ... liability for their judicial acts, and is applicable only to ... the performance of ministerial duties. Scott v ... Ryan, 115 Ala. 587, 22 So. 284; Coleman v ... Roberts, 113 Ala. 323, 21 So. 449, 36 L. R. A. 84, 59 ... Am. St. Rep. 111; Roberts v. Hunt, ... ...
-
Lynn v. McElroy, Civ. A. No. 9357.
...v. Fitzpatrick, 161 Ala. 171, 49 So. 686, 135 Am.St. Rep. 123; Duffin v. Summerville, 9 Ala. App. 573, 577, 63 So. 816; Scott v. Ryan, 115 Ala. 587, 22 So. 284; State ex rel. Krasner v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 246 Ala. 198, 19 So.2d 841; Kelly v. Moore, 51 Ala. 364. 2 Kenn......
-
Zellner v. Wallace
...to the adoption and application of this doctrine of immunity as it relates to judicial officers by the State of Alabama, see Scott v. Ryan, 115 Ala. 587, 22 So. 284; Irion v. Lewis, 56 Ala. 190; McKinley v. Simmons, 274 Ala. 355, 148 So.2d 648; and Coleman v. Roberts, 113 Ala. 323, 21 So. 4......