
    Hazard vs. Slade, Sheriff.
    rn an action against the Sheriff, for taking insufficient bail, on mesne process, if the defeu~e be, that the bail was sufficient, when taken, it is necessary for the defendant to prove, that the bail when taken had a substantial property, amply sufficient to answer the demand, and that would probably continue so; proof that the bail were ostensibly, but nor really possessed of sufficient prop. erty, will not exonerate the SheriIL
    THiS was an actiosl against the defendant, former Sheriff of Addison county, for taking insufficient bail on mesne process, at the suit of the present plaintiff, against ~M. Hull.
    Plea-the general issue.
    On trial the plaintiff proved the insolvepey of both the principal and the b~til, and the consequent Toss of his debt~
    Addison,
    January, 1814.
    
      
      Seymour and Doolittle for the defendant,
    slated that at the time ^ie ba‘l were received by the Sheriff, they were sufficient, and therefore by the act passed the 7th of November, 1806, the Sheriff is not liable m this action.
    The evidence produced on the part of the defendant, proved, that J. Hull and W. Hull at the time they were received as bail by the Sheriff, were possessed of personal property amply sufficient to pay the plaintiff’s demand, but they were not freeholders. On a cross examination it appeared that they were deeply in debt; and that their personal property consisted principally of cows and other cattle which they had taken on hire, and which were shortly after returned.
    The Council for the defendant contended, that if the bail at the time they were received by the Sheriff, were ostensibly sufficient, it is all the law requires, and the Sheriff is not liable.
   By the Court.

• It must be a real, not- merely an ostensible sufficiency. The words of the statute are, “ The officer serving such process, (attachments on mense process) shall not be made liable for the insufficiency of such surety or sureties, if he shall, on trial, make it appear that, at the time of receiving such said surety or sureties, the same were amply sufficient. A mere ostensible sufficiency will not excuse, it must be real and ample, a substantial responsibility in point of property, and such as would probably continue so, to answer the demand.

Verdict for the plaintiff.  