{
  "id": 2088523,
  "name": "SARAH J. DUNTON v. JESSE L. DOXEY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dunton v. Doxey",
  "decision_date": "1859-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "222",
  "last_page": "224",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "7 Jones 222"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 N.C. 222"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Murph. Rep. 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        8685865
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/7/0146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ired. Rep. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 311,
    "char_count": 5441,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6479097110371414e-07,
      "percentile": 0.69221062695161
    },
    "sha256": "789972703b0c81b06951f2476fcc29eb31c8f43e55a5643455a4dbaf017f3713",
    "simhash": "1:96db8f701aded62a",
    "word_count": 953
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:19.129964+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SARAH J. DUNTON v. JESSE L. DOXEY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Manly, J.\nWe perceive no error in the judgment of the Court below.\nWhere claims, subject to the jurisdiction of a single justice, are placed in the hands of a constable for collection, and he gives an accountable receipt for them, the presumption is, they are committed to him as an officer, and he is accountable as an officer, unless it appear that he received them in some other capacity. It would have added no force to this presumption, if, as is most usual, the officer had added to his name the usual initial letter of his office.\nThe other branch of the exception, that the officer was not officially charged with the collection of the note against the non-resident debtor, is likewise untenable. Although not at liberty to go beyond the limits of his county, and not responsible, of course, for failure to do' so, yet if the debtor be in his county, so that he may collect, and the claim is of an amount and nature, subject to be collected by a warrant before a justice, the constable is officially bound to collect, and is in the same way responsible for the money when collected.\nThere is a class oi' cases, in which it seems to be established, as a principle, that the constable is not chargeable in his official capacity, for claims, to collect which, were out of the jurisdiction of a justice, either on account of the amount, or character of the demand, such claims could not be collected by him through any official action, and it could not, therefore, be in the contemplation of the obligors to the bond, the sureties, to become responsible for misconduct in regard to such matters. But with respect to all claims of an amount and nature to be collected through a justices judgment, and -which might be collected within the limits of the county, for which the constable is appointed, it would be different.\nIt is not a question of domicil, but is a question,, whether the officer, acting within the sphere of his official duty, as prescribed by law, and exercising the proper degree of diligence, might have collected. The cases to which we refer, are Blythe v. Outland. 11 Ired. Rep. 134, and others there cited, which, we think, were decided on cor.rect grounds, and are entirely consistent with the ruling of the case now before us.\nThe case of Dade v. Morris, 3 Murph. Rep. 146, to which our attention has been directed, turned upon the peculiar but erroneous conditions of the bond, which were for the performance of the constable\u2019s duties within a particular district of the county; and there was no breach alleged, or if alleged, proved, within that district. It, therefore, stands upon a different ground from the one now under consideration.\nPer Curiam,\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Manly, J. Per Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jordcm, for the plaintiff.",
      "Johnson and Hines, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SARAH J. DUNTON v. JESSE L. DOXEY et al.\nWhere claims, subject to a single justice\u2019s jurisdiction, are placed in the hands of a constable for collection, and he gives an accountable receipt therefor, the presumption is, that they are committed to him as' an officer, unless the contrary appear.\nWhere a claim against a non-resident of the State, but subject to a single justice\u2019s jurisdiction, was put into a constable\u2019s hands for collection, and he collected the money, it was Held that a failure to pay over such money, on demand, was a breach of his official bond.\nThis was an action of Debt upon a constable\u2019s bond, tried before Manly, J., at Fall Term, 1859, of Currituck Superior Court.\nThe bond contained the usual conditions, and was. executed by Jesse L. Doxey, as principal, and the other defendants as sureties, at February Term, 1857, of Currituck County Court.\nOn the 28th of March following, the defendant, Doxey, .gave the following receipt:\n\u201c Received of Sarah Dunton three notes on David Duuton\u2019s and Alexander Dunton\u2019s estates.\n1st. A note for the sum of $39,90, with interest from March the 7th, 1855.\n2ndly. A note for the sum of $34,59, with interest from the 18th of August, 1852.\n3rdly. A note for the sum of $36,00, with interest from the . 20th of May, 1849. The above notes \u2019are put into my hands to be collected or returned. This March the 28th, 1857.\u201d (Signed,) Jesse L. Doxey.\nThe evidence was, that Doxey collected all the claims thus put into his hands, and that the money was demanded of him within the official year, but no part paid, the constable replying to the demand, that he had no money, and that his official bond made it as secure as he .could make it.\nIt was also in proof, that one of the debtors lived, at the date of this receipt, and continued to live through, the official .year, out of the State.\nDefendants\u2019 counsel contended, that relator could not recover upon the bond, as to any of the claims put into the constable\u2019s hands, because they were not received officially, so as to charge the sureties, there being no addition to the constable\u2019s name in the receipt; and especially, was this the case, as to the claim against-, who resided out of the county, in the State of Yirginia.\nBut the Court was of opinion, that upon the proofs, and the fact of the defendant\u2019s acting as a constable, there was a presumption, that the claims were received by the constable, in his official capacity, and that the relator might recover all the claims upon the breach alleged of collection and non-payment on demand, as well that against the non-resident as the other two.\nThere was a verdict accordingly. Judgment. Appeal by defendants.\nJordcm, for the plaintiff.\nJohnson and Hines, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0222-01",
  "first_page_order": 230,
  "last_page_order": 232
}