People ex rel. Lane v. Hilton
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
At Law. This was a demurrer to a declaration against a sheriff and his bondsmen for failure to pay over certain moneys alleged to have been received by him in his official capacity.
Read the full summary
At Law. This was a demurrer to a declaration against a sheriff and his bondsmen for failure to pay over certain moneys alleged to have been received by him in his official capacity. The condition of the sheriff’s bond was that, “if said Hilton shall well and faithfully in all things perform and execute the duties of the office of sheriff of said county of St. Clair during his continuance in said office, by virtue of said election, without fraud, deceit, or oppression, and shall pay over all moneys that shall or may come into his hands as such sheriff, then said obligation to be void;…
1Opinion of the Court
BrowN, J.,
('after stating the facts as above.} There is no doubt of the general proposition that the obligation of a surety is strictissimi juris, and cannot be extended by construction. He is liable only where there is a breach of the letter of his contract. The sureties upon an official bond, as a rule, are only liable for such sums of money as their principal may lawfully receive by virtue of his office. Brandt, Sur. § 451. The only question in this case is whether the money received by the sheriff was received in his official capacity as sheriff, or as the agent of the plaintiff in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cressey v. GiermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
3Cited by3 opinions
- County of Hawaii v. PurdyHawaii Supreme Court · 1914
- Power County v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1927
- State v. SnowWashington Supreme Court · 1911