State, Use of Williams v. Dayton

Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought by the appellant to recover damages from the appellees for an alleged wrong committed by the appellee Dayton while acting as a constable. The declaration alleges that Dayton gave bond to the State, with the other appellees named in the writ, conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of the office of constable, and that he did not faithfully execute the duties of that office, in that he had a writ of fieri facias in his hands, issued on a judgment against one Mary Beedle, to be served in a right and lawful manner, but. instead of so doing,.entered the store of the said Mary “roughly and rudely did proceed” in a public manner in the presence of customers, to levy upon and seize the goods of the said Mary Beedle, “and then and there the appellant, who was a clerk and agent of the said Mary Beedle protested against such proceeding, and offered money sufficient to pay ⁵⁹⁹ the judgment, and the costs thereon,” and after she again protested, the said Dayton “seized her by the wrists and twisted and sprained her wrist, in a rough and cruel manner and beat and bruised her in such a manner, &c.” To this the appellees interposed a demurrer. The Court sustained it, and rendered judgment for the appellee, whereupon the appellant has taken this appeal.

The only question in the case is whether the sureties on the bond are liable in damages for the wrong thus committed. As to the general principle applicable to a case of this kind there can be no question. “It is familiar law that the contract of sureties upon an official bond is subject to the strictest interpretation. They undertake for nothing which is not within the strict letter of their contract. The obligation is strictissimi juris, and nothing is to be taken by construction against the obligors.

They