
    
      The Treasurers vs. John Oswald, et al.
    
    Where a sheriff has been sued on his official bond, and to the plea of performance* there is a replication, by plaintiff’s assigning as a breach, “ that the sheriff, during his term of office, (to wit,) on the 1st January, 1831, and on divers days between that day and the 35th January, 1817, had and received, for and on account of the plaintiff, &c., "a large sum of money, to wit: the sum of $2,396 93, and that the same was not paid over.” To this replication, there were special demurrers. In the Appeal Court, the demurrers were overruled, and the replication was sustained.
    
      Colleton District, Spring Term, 1841 — Before O’Neall, J.
    These were actions of debt, on the official bond of Wm. Oswald, late sheriff of Colleton, during his term of office, from February, 1817, to February, 1821. To the pleas of performance, the plaintiffs replied, and assigned for breach, that the said sheriff, during his term of office, to wit, “on the first day of January, 1821, and on divers days between that day and the 25th of January, 1817, had and received, for and on account of the said Treasure ers, and their successors in office, a large sum of money, #to wit, the sum of $2,396 92,” and that he did not pay the same over. To which, there were special demurers, for the causes. 1st, That the plaintiffs did not set forth at what specific times, and in what several sums, the said sheriff received the said sum of $2,396 92. 2. That the said replication assigned several and independent breaches.
    The Court thought the replication was too general, and sustained the demurrer.
    The plaintiffs appeal, and contend that the decision should have been otherwise.
    Mr. Edwards, for the motion,
    submitted the case without argument.
    Mr. Rhett, contra,
    argued the case, and cited in support of his view, 2 Saund. 411, note 4; 1 Chit. 461; Gainsford vs. Griffith, 1 Saund. 58; Abbington vs. Merrick, 2 Saund.
   Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

On the authority of the rule stated by Mr. Sergt. Williams in his note 4, to Arlington vs. Merricke, 2d Saund. 411, that “ when a subject comprehends multiplicity of matter, then, in order to avoid prolixity, the law allows of general pleading,” we think the demurrer ought to have been overruled. For, although the replication is very general, and does not even state from what causes the money arose, which the replication alleges that the sheriff received for and on account of the Treasurers, yet the fact stated that it was money received for and on account of the plaintiffs, brings it within the cases referred to by Sergt. Williams, and therefore, we are disposed to sustain the replication.

The motion to reverse the decision below is granted, the defendants’ demurrer is overruled, and they are ordered to rejoin.

JOHN B. O’NEALL.

We concur. J. S. Richardson, J. J. Evans, A. P. Butler, D. L. Wardlaw.  