Turner v. Sisson
| Citation | 137 Mass. 191 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1884 |
| Parties | Alfred T. Turner v. David C. Sisson & others |
Suffolk. Contract, by the treasurer of the city of Boston, upon a bond executed by the defendant Sisson as principal, and the other defendants as sureties, and conditioned for the faithful performance by Sisson of his duties as a constable of said city. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and after judgment for the defendants, to this court, on appeal upon agreed facts, the material parts of which appear in the opinion.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
E. M Bigelow, for the plaintiff.
C. R Train, (H. J. Edwards with him,) for the sureties.
An attachment or seizure on execution, by a constable, of the property of one person on a process against another, is a breach of the condition of his official bond for the faithful performance of his duties in the service of civil processes for which he and his sureties are liable. Greenfield v. Wilson, 13 Gray 384. In the case before us, the defendant Sisson, who was a constable of the city of Boston, seized and took the property of Joseph Batten upon an execution against Joseph Batten, Jr. This suit is brought on the official bond of Sisson, in the name of the treasurer of the city, for the benefit of the administratrix of Joseph Batten. The sureties upon the bond contend that they are not liable, because the execution was one which a constable had no authority to serve, it being an execution for alimony decreed in a divorce suit by the Supreme Judicial Court, directed "to the sheriffs of our several counties or their deputies," and not to a constable.
It is immaterial whether a constable has authority to serve such a process or not. The object of the bond given by a deputy sheriff or constable is to make the sureties responsible for the due performance of his official acts in the service of process, and in his other duties. By an official act is not meant a lawful act of the officer in the service of process; if so, the sureties would never be responsible. It means any act done by the officer in his official capacity, under color and by virtue of his office.
It was held in Lowell v. Parker, 10 Met. 309, that where a constable attached goods on a writ in which the ad damnum exceeded $ 70, and which therefore he had no authority to serve, the sureties on his bond were liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Kaercher v. Roth, 30050.
...Co., 92 Wash. 401, 159 Pac. 384; Clancy v. Kenworthy, 74 Iowa, 740, 35 N.W. 427; Greenburg v. People, 225 Ill. 174, 80 N.E. 100; Turner v. Sisson, 137 Mass. 191; State v. Walford, 11 Ind. App. 392, 39 N.E. 162; Lammon v. Feusier, 111 U.S. 17, 28 L. Ed. 337, 4 Sup. Ct. 286; Union Indemnity C......
-
Helgeson v. Powell
...129 N.W. 448, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 275; Greenberg v. People, 225 Ill. 174, 80 N.E. 100, 116 Am. St. 127, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 1223; Turner v. Sisson, 137 Mass. 191), others take the position that the surety is not liable for such acts. (Inman v. Sherrill, 29 Okla. 100, 116 P. 426; People v. Pa......
-
McCandless v. Clark
... ... Summerville, 63 So. 816; State v. McDaniel, ... 78 Miss. 1, 27 So. 994, 84 A. S. R. 618; Clancy v ... Kenworthy, 74 Iowa 740, 35 N.W. 427; Turner v ... Sisson, 137 Mass. 191; McLendon v. State, 92 ... Tenn. 520, 22 S.W. 200; State v. Flinn, 3 Blackf ... 72, 23 Am. Dec. 380; Brown v ... ...
-
Mchenry County v. Howe
...act is an act done by an officer under color of or by virtue of his office. Meek v. Titlighan, 55 Okla. 208, 154 P. 1190; Turner v. Sisson, 137 Mass. 191; Lammon v. Feusier, 111 U.S. 17, 28 L. ed. 337, S.Ct. 286; Hall v. Tierney, 89 Minn. 407, 95 N.W. 219; Murfree, Official Bonds, para. 211......