St. Clair County IL Archives Court.....Rankin, V. Beaird 1826
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 February 9, 2009, 12:44 am

Source: Il Court Reports, 1819-1830
Written: 1826

June Term 1826

David Rankin, Plaintiff in Error, v. William A. Beaird, Sheriff, Defendant in 
Error.

ERROR TO ST. CLAIR.

The legislature can by an act release a person from imprisonment who has been 
convicted of forgery, though one-half of the fine imposed against him, goes to 
the person attempted to be defrauded by the forgery. The sheriff releasing the 
convict, under such an act, it is not liable lor an escape.

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Wilson. This action is brought against 
Beaird, as sheriff of St. Clair county, for $1000, for the escape of William 
D. Noble, who was committed to his custody upon a conviction of forgery, at 
the May term of the circuit court of St. Clair county, by which he attempted 
to defraud Rankin of $1000. The judgment of the court was, that he should be 
fined $2000 one half to Rankin, and stand committed till the fine and costs 
were paid. In January, 1823, the legislature passed an act requiring the 
sheriff of St. Clair county, who was Beaird, the defendant in error, to 
discharge Wm. D. Noble out of custody, which he accordingly did. On the trial 
of this cause, Beaird plead the act aforesaid in bar of the action, to which 
plea Rankin demurred, and the demurrer was overruled by the court, and 
judgment rendered for defendant. It is said that the statute relied upon by 
Beaird, is unconstitutional, because, by discharging Noble out of custody, it 
destroyed a vested interest which Rankin had in the judgment against him. It 
is unnecessary to inquire what interest Rankin had in the fine imposed on 
Noble, because, whatever interest he originally had in that, he has yet. It 
would be absurd to contend that he had a vested right in his imprisonment, and 
this act has no other effect than to discharge him from imprisonment.

It may be questioned whether Rankin had any vested interest in the fine till 
it was collected; but if it is admitted that he had, this act does not destroy 
it, but leaves him to his action. See the authorities referred to in the case 
of the County Commissioners v. Coles, to which this is in some respects 
analogous.*

The judgment of the court below is affirmed. (1)

Judgment affirmed.

Blackwell, for plaintiff in error. 

T. Reynolds, for defendant in error.

----------------
*Ante, page 164.

(1) If a third person had acquired a vested interest in the fine, or in the 
costs of the suit, neither the legislature nor the Governor had power to 
divest him of it. Holliday v. The People, 5 Gilm., 216. Rowe v. State, 2 Bay, 
565?. Exparte, McDonald, 2 Wharton, 440. United States v. Lancaster, 4 Wash. 
C. C. R., 64,5 Bac. Abr., 288.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases at Common Law and in Chancery, Argued and Determined in the
Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, From its First Organization in 1819, 
to the End of December Term, 1831 

By Sidney Breese, Counsellor at Law
Second Edition, with Additional Notes, By Edwin Beecher

Chicago: Callaghan & Company, 1877.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/stclair/court/rankin252gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/

File size: 3.6 Kb