
    Noel v. Fisher.
    [Thursday, April 29, 1802.]
    Salle of Offlce»Bond — Effect,—A "bond for the sale of an office is void.
    William Fisher brought debt in the County Court,, against Noel, upon a bond, dated the 20th of April, 1789, and executed by Noel to Fisher, deputy Sheriff of John Upshaw, High Sheriff of the county of Essex; the condition of which was as follows: “Whereas the above bound Richard Noel hath been accepted, received and allowed to be deputy Sheriff, for and under the said John Upshaw in the upper precinct or St. Anne’s parish in.the said county, from the commencement of this bond, until the expiration of the said William Fisher’s time, and for the perquisites *and benefits of the said office, he agrees and .obliges himself, his heirs, &c. to pay the said William Fisher, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, the sum of thirty-five pounds, at two payments, one half at or upon the twenty-fifth day of June, the other moiety on the 25th day of December next following, and so in proportion for a greater or less time as it may happen. If,, therefore, the said Richard Noel shall well and truly collect and receive all other fees and dues put into his hands to collect, and duly account for and pay the same to the officers to whom such fees are due, respectively at such times as are prescribed by law; and duly collect all taxes and dues imposed by law, and pay the same as the law directs; and shall well and truly execute and due return make of all process and precepts to him directed, and pay and satisfy all sums of money and tobacco by him received by virtue of any such process to the person or persons to whom the same are due, his or their executors, administrators or assigns, and in all other things shall truly and faithfully perform the said office of deputy Sheriff during the time of his continuance therein; and at all times hereafter indemnify them, the said John Upshaw and William Fisher, their heirs, execufors and administrators, in every thing relating to the office of Sheriff; then the above obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. ” The declaration assigns a breach in not paying the 351. and alleges generally, that the defendant'had not performed any of the conditions of the’ bond. Plea, conditions performed. Issue — Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for 1361. 6s. 3d. damages. Noel appealed to the District Court, where the judgment was affirmed; and thereupon he appealed to this Court.
    'Warden, for the appellant.
    Made four points. 1. That there was no venue, as the county was not stated either in the margin or the body of *the declaration. 2. That the breach was not sufficiently set forth, and the averment, with regard to the time during which there was to be a payment of the 351., was not certain enough. 3. That greater damages are found than are laid in the decláration. 4. That the bond is void ; because it was given for the sale of an office, which concerned the administration of justice. R.' C. 63; [ed. 1819, c. 145, l 1, vol. 1, p. 559].
    Smith and Wickham; contra.
    There was no occasion for a venue, as the action was transitorj', and the act of Assembly directs that the jury shall be composed of bye-standers; which supersedes the necessity of a venue altogether. But at any rate the statute of Jeofails cures it. The breach is well enough laid, and there was no necessity to be more particular as to the 351. That greater damages are found, in an action of this kind, than were laid in the writ, has been decided not to be error. Payne v. Elzey, 2 Wash. 143. The act of 1792 does not render the bond void; for, there is an express exception in it, with regard to contracts between Sheriffs and their deputies; and the contract here, though in form, between the deputies, was substantially between the Sheriff and Noel; because, the approbation of the Sheriff was necessary; and, therefore, it is within the reason and spirit of the proviso.
    Warden, in reply.
    It was a contract between Noel and Fisher, that the latter should procure the Sheriff’s permission that the former should become his deputy; which is sufficient'to avoid the bond; for, it leads to extortion and oppression.
    
      
      The principal case is cited and distinguished in Salling v. McKinney, 1 Leigh 45, 56, 63.
    
   PER CUR.

“The Court is of opinion that the judgments aforesaid'are erroneous in this, that the bond on which this ' suit is brought, as set forth *in the proceedings, is void in law, the same having been taken and entered into contrary to the directions and provisions of a British statute made in- the fifth and sixth years of the reign of King Edward the sixth, against buying and selling offices, which statute was in force in this State at the time the said bond was made. Therefore, it is considered that the judgments be reversed, &c.”  