
    DAVID NIVIN, Defendant below, v. STATE, for the use of FIELD, WARDEN, and BACON.
    Court of Errors and Appeals.
    August, 1811.
    
      Clayton’s Notebook, 26.
      
    
    
      
       This case is also reported in Ridgely’s Notebook I, 10.
      
    
   The Court were of opinion that under the recognizance the sheriff’s sureties are merely answerable for what is done during the continuance of the term of office, and not for anything done afterwards, under the Act of Assembly [2 Del.Laws 933] permitting writs of venditioni exponas in certain cases to be directed to and executed by-later sheriffs; and accordingly reversed the judgment of the court below.

Ex relatione W. T. Clayton.  