Jarratt v. . McGee

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Jarratt v. . McGee

29 N.C. 377

DecidedAugust 5, 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 29 N.C. 377 (Jarratt v. . McGee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jarratt v. . McGee, 29 N.C. 377 (N.C. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

There is no doubt upon this question of evidence. The act of 1836, Rev. State., ch. 109, sec. 23, makes the sheriff and his sureties liable for claims placed in the hands of a deputy. The receipt of the deputy for the claim is evidence against the sheriff when given in the discharge of official duties; and this is a receipt of that kind. S. v. Allen,27 N.C. 36. Indeed, the receipt of the deputy being the act of an agent, is in law the receipt of the sheriff himself, and binds him accordingly — as if the deputy receive the money on an execution and give an acquittance therefor, or return satisfaction on the execution in the sheriff's name. It is true that in S. v. Fullenwider, 26 N.C. 364, it was held that a constable's receipt for a claim to collect was not evidence against the sureties. But probably on account of that case that has been altered by the act of 1844, which makes the receipt or acknowledge of the sheriff, or any other officer, or any other matter or thing which is admissible against him, competent also against his sureties. The act is remedial, and this is the receipt of the sheriff, within the meaning of the act; and, at all events, it is an instrument which is competent evidence against the sheriff, and it is, therefore, admissible against all the defendants.

PER CURIAM. No error.

(379)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

There is no doubt upon this question of evidence. The act of 1836, Rev. State., ch. 109, sec. 23, makes the sheriff and his sureties liable for claims placed in the hands of a deputy. The receipt of the deputy for the claim is evidence against the sheriff when given in the discharge of official duties; and this is a receipt of that kind. S. v. Allen,27 N.C. 36. Indeed, the receipt of the deputy being the act of an agent, is in law the receipt of the sheriff himself, and binds him accordingly — as if the deputy receive the money on an execution and give an acquittance therefor, or return satisfaction on the execution in the sheriff's name. It is true that in S. v. Fullenwider, 26 N.C. 364, it was held that a constable's receipt for a claim to collect was not evidence against the sureties. But probably on account of that case that has been altered by the act of 1844, which makes the receipt or acknowledge of the sheriff, or any other officer, or any other matter or thing which is admissible against him, competent also against his sureties. The act is remedial, and this is the receipt of the sheriff, within the meaning of the act; and, at all events, it is an instrument which is competent evidence against the sheriff, and it is, therefore, admissible against all the defendants.

PER CURIAM. No error.

(379)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.C. 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarratt-v-mcgee-nc-1847.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack