Treasurers of the State v. Gibson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Treasurers of the State v. Gibson

21 S.C.L. 339

DecidedJuly 1, 1837

StatusPublished

This text of 21 S.C.L. 339 (Treasurers of the State v. Gibson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Treasurers of the State v. Gibson, 21 S.C.L. 339 (S.C. Ct. App. 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

Richardson, J.

It is unnecessary to decide all the grounds setting aside the non-suit. The third ground, that Richard Ingram was out of the State at the time of bringing tbe action, decides the case. The only reason for which it could be considered necessary that a personal demand ought to have been made for the money received by the sheriff, before his sureties could be made answerable, is this. That an officer should be presumed always ready and willing to do his duty. And until the contrary shall have been proved, we ought to presume he would have done it, if required. But when he abandons the country within which the duty is to be performed, the presumption is weakened, if not contradicted, by his conduct. By taking himself off, Mr. Ingram took away the means of doing his duty, at least in the place where it ought to have been performed ; and he put it out of the power of the plaintiffs to demand the money. Such conduct negatives the presumption that he held himself ready to pay, and only waited to be asked for the money he had received. A personal demand was therefore superfluous, and the motion is granted..

Gantt, Evans, Earle, and Butler, JJ. concurred.

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

Curia, per

Richardson, J.

It is unnecessary to decide all the grounds setting aside the non-suit. The third ground, that Richard Ingram was out of the State at the time of bringing tbe action, decides the case. The only reason for which it could be considered necessary that a personal demand ought to have been made for the money received by the sheriff, before his sureties could be made answerable, is this. That an officer should be presumed always ready and willing to do his duty. And until the contrary shall have been proved, we ought to presume he would have done it, if required. But when he abandons the country within which the duty is to be performed, the presumption is weakened, if not contradicted, by his conduct. By taking himself off, Mr. Ingram took away the means of doing his duty, at least in the place where it ought to have been performed ; and he put it out of the power of the plaintiffs to demand the money. Such conduct negatives the presumption that he held himself ready to pay, and only waited to be asked for the money he had received. A personal demand was therefore superfluous, and the motion is granted..

Gantt, Evans, Earle, and Butler, JJ. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.C.L. 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treasurers-of-the-state-v-gibson-scctapp-1837.