County Commissioners v. Carroll

³⁸⁷ Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The County Commissioners of Talbot County appeal from a judgment for reimbursement of the sheriff of the county, under a supposed statutory requirement, for premiums paid by him to a surety company for his official bond. Article 25, section 20, of the Code, provides that, when any county treasurer, tax collector, county commissioner, or any officer coming within the common meaning of a county official shall furnish an official bond executed by a surety company, the county may pay the premium, to a specified maximum amount, from the general fund of the county, “provided, however, that when any such bond is given by a clerk of court, register of wills, state’s attorney or sheriff, the payment of the premium on said bond shall be charged as an expense of any such officer.” The question of liability of the county under this statute is presented by the granting of a prayer of the sheriff for an instruction to the jury that the statute commands reimbursement of him, by the county, and refusal of a prayer , by the commissioners for direction of a verdict in their favor. The two parts of the statute, the first clause and the proviso, are distinct in respect to officials and the public funds from which the premiums may be paid.

County officials are specified in the first