TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brayton v. Town

Brayton v. Town, 12 Iowa 346 (1861)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 3, 1861
Judges
Baldwin
Citations
12 Iowa 346
Headnotes
1. SnERiFi?: action on bond. Where a deputy sheriff collects money on execution and neglects or refuses to pay over the same, the remedy of the party injured is by action against the sheriff, on his bond, and not against the deputy and his sureties.
Summary
Appeal from, Delaware District Court. ACTION by a judgment creditor against a deputy sheriff and his sureties, for a breach of his official bond, in refusing to pay over moneys collected on execution against the property of a judgment debtor. The sureties demurred to the petition, assigning the following, among other causes : “ The said petition alleges as a cause of action a failure of said A. R. Town to perform his duty as deputy sheriff of Delaware county, for S. E. Parker, the sheriff of said county, for which failure the said A. R. Town and his sureties and co-defendants are not liable in law, to said plaintiff.” This demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff appeals. cited Colin v. Holbrook, 3 Barb. 475; Melntire v. Trumbull, 7 John. 35 ; Tuttle v. Love, lb. 470; Kane v. Ostrander, 8 lb. 207; Hughes v. Smith, 5 lb. 168; Stevens v. Boyce, 9 lb. 292; Andrews v. Beall, 9 Cow. 693; Bówe v. Richardson, 5 Barb. S85; The People v. Deming, 1 Wend. 16.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Baldwin

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Baldwin, J.

Under the provision of § 411, the sheriff is made responsible for the acts of his deputy. Where money has been collected by a deputy sheriff, upon an execution, and he refuses or neglects to pay over the same, the remedy is upon the bond of the sheriff, and not against the deputy and his sureties. The appointment of a deputy must be in writing, and approved by the officer who approves the bond of the principal; and the appointment thus endorsed, is to be filed in the office of the county judge. This seems to be required for the purpose of letting the public know who is authorized to act as such deputy. The bond of the deputy *348 is to be given to the sheriff, and need not be filed or approved, but is for the protection of the sheriff and his sureties.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1884–1885: 11914–1915: 11918–1919: 11940–1941: 118842026peak 1884 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Drake v. Keeling299 N.W. 919 (Iowa 1941)
  2. Headington v. Langland21 N.W. 650 (Iowa 1884)
  3. City of Duluth v. Ross167 N.W. 485 (Minn. 1918)
  4. Rehmel v. Board of Supervisors154 N.W. 596 (Iowa 1915)

Most recent

  1. Drake v. Keeling299 N.W. 919 (Iowa 1941)
  2. City of Duluth v. Ross167 N.W. 485 (Minn. 1918)
  3. Rehmel v. Board of Supervisors154 N.W. 596 (Iowa 1915)
  4. Headington v. Langland21 N.W. 650 (Iowa 1884)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list