Musselman v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Munroe. Dec. 22. Debt against a constable and his sureties on an official bond. The bond was conditioned that Musselman, the constable, should “ execute all writs and process to him directed, without delay and according to law.” This bond was produced by the clerk of the sessions from among the records of the court, but there ivas no entry of the filing or approval on the bond or on the record, or of the swearing of the constable.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Munroe. Dec. 22. Debt against a constable and his sureties on an official bond. The bond was conditioned that Musselman, the constable, should “ execute all writs and process to him directed, without delay and according to law.” This bond was produced by the clerk of the sessions from among the records of the court, but there ivas no entry of the filing or approval on the bond or on the record, or of the swearing of the constable. The plaintiff showed a recovery against one Van Horn before a justice, on whose docket there was an entry of an “execution, issued…
1Per curiam
There is nothing in the case to sustain any of the exceptions. The constable’s official bond was found among the records of the office in its proper place; and though no entry of the approval and filing of it was shown, the presumption is that every thing was regularly done. Incalculable mischief would be done if these omissions were available. Besides, it would not be with the sureties to make them ground of objection; for the approval and filing is not to protect them, but to protect the execution-creditors. The exclusion of the defendant’s evidence of the constable’s removal within the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Masser v. StricklandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828