
    Teasdale against Kennedy, Sheriff of Charleston District.
    ff a U.eriiT taken ?. houro-holder, in ap-oircrmsian-01 hi.'win'mrtbe hai.ie to a .s^e-cis'J action,, thi -i -h the bail turn <ml iusohvi.t lint one nsUrioih-oiic'in'io'ibt stn»c’"U-orn" one uni a fix-cd reodent, he will be lia-hie.
    SPECIAL action on the case, for taking insufficient . ’ ° bail.
    Taylor, for the plaintiff
    stated that he had commenced a su^ f°r the plaintiff, in 1788,against one Wagner, of Georgia. That an affidavit ox the debt was annexed to the writ, and 7 it was indorsed for bail, to the amount of 76i. 6s. 2cl. That owe M'-Fariane became bail for the defendant in the action, j udgmeut was regular!)' obtained agains~ the defendant, and afterwards, on a scire fados, against the bail, who turned out insolvent. This was therefore an action instituted against the defendant, for taking insufficient bail, by which means the . ' plaintiff lost his debt, 1
    
    
      M'-Fariane himself was produced as a witness, who proved that at the time he became bail, he was a shopkeeper, paid 70/. a year rent, had a store of goods, and a landed property, which he had since sold for 200/. and further, that he had a bond and mortgage put in his hands to counter secure him.
    Pinckney, lor the defuidanl,
    urged, that as sheriff of the district, he had done all that was incumbent on him as a •public officer tc do.. lie had taken a man as bail, who was at the time, in apparently solvent and in good circum» stances ; a householder, and one that had, to every appearance, a permanent residence. That it was not the duty of a sheriff, to inquire minutely into a man’s private concerns, or to warrant his solvency. lie conceded, that if a sheriff will take as bail, men notoriously insolvent, men in doubtful circumstances, or men who have no fixed residence ¡ that in such a case he would be liable ; because it would not be using that diligent attention and caution which the law has imposed upon a sheriff as a duty annexed to his office. So, on the other hand, were a sheriff to re!use bail, where the party offering appeared to be in good circum-jlaiu.es and repute, it would subject him to a special actios on the case, for oppression in office. 1 hat at any rate, it was the duty of the plaintilF to have taken out a rule upon the bail, to make him justify, and if he refused, then it would have been a good ground for the sheriff to have taken better bail.
    Taylor, in reply,
    said, that the reason why he did not call upon the bail in this case to justify, was because he Sheard the sheriff tell the plaintiff, who complained of the insufficiency of the bail, that he need not be afraid of his debt, as he had in his hands, property of Wagner'’s to three times the amount of it, and desired him to go on and get Ms judgment. In consequence of which declaration, he rested satisfied, and went on with the usual proceedings, both against the principal and bail, till they turned out insolvent ; and now contended, that the action would lie against the sheriff on .two grounds: first, for taking insufficient bail; and secondly, on the ground of the sheriff’s assurances that he had property more than enough to satisfy the plaintiff’s demand.
   By the Court*

Every man who undertakes an office, ought to perform the duties of it strictly, and to use all due diligence and care in the execution of it; particularly a sheriff, who is an officer of great trust 5 and if ant’ man, on account of Ms omission or neglect, suffer by it, he is liable in damages. But on the oilier hand, where he discharges Ms duty faithfully, he is highly protected in law. in die present case, the law has been very properly stated on behalf of the defendant. If a sheriff takes as bail, a man who is notoriously insolvent, in doubtful circumstances, or r, iih-out a fixed residence, or the like, he is answerable. Bur where, aman is a householder, in apparent good circumstances, to refuse such a man as bail, would be an abuse of office, for which he would be answerable. Here it does not appear that the sheriff acted improperly in taking the bail he did. As to the other ground, if the jury should be of opinion that the plaintiff lost his money by the assurances of the sheriff that he had enough in his hands to pay the debt, they may charge him; but if it was only a conjecture that he would have so much, or if the funds were such that he could not detain them, it would tbe hard to make him liable.

Verdict for defendant.  