
    John Lay et al. vs. The State.
    1. SHBunr. His bond as tax collector. Motion. Revenue. Acts of 1840, cks. 142, || 1, 2, and 160, | 6; and act of 1852, ch. 256, | 9. "Where it appeared that the bond of a sheriff for the collection and payment of the State revenue -wag not renewed on the first Monday in April of the second year of his term, as required by the act of 1840, ch. 140, but was renewed at the July Term of the County Court following ; it is held, that said bond is not thereby invalidated as a good statutory bond, but was valid as such, both under the act of 1840, ch. 160, $ 6, and the act of 1862, ch. 256, g 9, and a motion may he maintained thereon against the sheriff and his sureties, for the revenue of the year, for which said bond was given.
    2. Same. Judgment. Surety. Practice. Clerical error. Whore an error of the clerk occurs in reciting in the judgment, the name of the surety, and the bond, upon appeal in error, is made part of the record, and gives the correct name, the Supreme Oourt will reverse the judgment, but will not remand the cause for that error, but proceed to render the proper judgment.
    3. Same. Same. Same. Same. Where, upon a motion for unpaid revenue against the sheriff and his sureties, it appeared that the Comptroller having audited the accounts of said sheriff, had allowed him certain credits; but the Circuit Judge rendered a judgment against said sheriff and his sureties, for the entire original demand disregarding said credits : it is held, upon appeal in error by the sureties, that such judgment was erroneous and reversible, but that the cause would not be remanded, but the proper judgment rendered in the Supreme Court.
    4. Cases Cited. Boughton vs. The State, 7 Humph., 193.
    FROM CAMPBELL.
    This was a motion in tbe Circuit Court of Campbell county, against William Warner, tbe sheriff of said county, and his sureties, for the State revenue of 1857, collected by said sheriff, and which he failed to pay-over. At the August Term, 1858, Judge Tueley gave judgment for the State, for the sum of $1545 69, from which the sureties appealed in error.
    Trigg, for the sureties.
    J. B. Heiskell and W. B. Reese, Jr., for the State.
   MoKiNNEY, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a motion for judgment against the sheriff of 'Campbell county and his securities, for failing to pay over the State revenue of said county, collected for the year 1867. Judgment was rendered for the sum of $1728 89, from which the sureties have prosecuted a writ of error to this Court.

Several objections have been urged against the regularity of said judgment.

1. That the bond, not being conformable to the act of 1840, ch. 142, does not authorize the judgment rendered thereon.

It appears that William Warner was duly elected sheriff and tax collector for Campbell county, in March, 1866; and on the 7th of April, thereafter, he entered into bond for two- years, 1866 and 1857. > It seems that it was neglected to have his bond for the collection and payment of the State and county revenue, renewed in April, 1867, as required by the act above referred to. But it is shown that the bond was renewed on the 6th of July, 1857; and upon this latter bond, the judgment was based.

The objection is, that the bond not having been executed “ on the first Monday in April,” as required by the act, is not a statutory bond, and consequently could not be proceeded upon in this summary method. This objection is not tenable, for two reasons. In the first place, we are of opinion that the renewal of the bond at a subsequent session of the Court to that prescribed in the act of 1840, ch. 142, was within the spirit of the subsequent act of the same session, ch. 160, sec. 6; and, therefore, was a statutory bond. But, in the next place, by the latter clause of the 9*th section of the act of 1851-2, cb. 256, it is expressly declared, “that all bonds and recognizances that may be deemed good and valid, as common law bonds and recognizances, shall hereafter be considered as statutory bonds.” It is clear, that under this provision, the objection is unfounded. And in this view, the case of Boughton vs. State, 7 Humph., 193, is not inconsistent with our determination in the present case.

2. But the judgment is against John Hunter, as one of the sureties. This would seem, from the record, to be a clerical mistake in writing the name Hunter, for Hutson ; “ John Hutson ” is the name attached to the bond, there is no surety of the name of Hunter.

3. The judgment appears to be for too large an amount. The account of State revenue, as audited by the Comptroller, with which Warner was chargeable, was $1545 69. This stands credited by the Comptroller, with $30 47 On account of “ releases,” and also, with the further sum of $90 91 for “commissions;” leaving the net balance of $1424 31, to be accounted for. Such is the state of the account as rendered by the Comptroller. But the Court in rendering judgment, disregarded the credits, and subjected the sheriff and his sureties to the full amount of $1545 69, with twelve- and-a-half per cent, thereon. As against the sureties, at least, who alone prosecute this writ of error, we think the Court erred in rendering judgment for more than the balance struck by the officer intrusted by law, to audit the account.

On the two latter grounds, the judgment must be reversed; and the proper judgment will be rendered here.  