W’ILL WILSON December 5, 1962
A’I-I’GRNEX- GENERAL
Mr. W. C. Lindsey Opinion No. WW-1485
Criminal District Attorney
Jefferson County Courthouse Re: The validity of deputy
Beaumont, Texas sheriffs' bonds where
the acting sheriff is
Dear Mr. Lindsey: not the obligee.
You have requested an opinion concernin the validi-
ty of deputy sheriffs' bonds made ayable to (17 the Sheriff
of Jefferson County, Texas, and (2P C. H. Meyer, Sheriff of
Jefferson County, Texas, where the said C. H. Meyer has been
suspended and another duly appointed acting sheriff in his
stead.
As a general rule, unless the irregularity or defect
is such as would render the bond invalid as either a statu-
tory or common law obligation, the surety will not be re-
lieved of his liability. Hines v. Norris, 81 S.W. 791, (civ.
App. 1904). More specifically, a bond that indicates the
obligee by reasonable intendment is not invalidated by fail-
ure to distinctly name him, Hall v. Hall, 198 S.W. 636, (Civ.
APP. error ref. 1917). Other cases dearing with this general
question and consistent with the result here are Kugle v.
Glen Rose Independent School Dist. No. 1, 50 S.W.2d 375; and
Watkins v. Minter, 107 Tex. 428, 160 S.W. 227, (1932).
Therefore, you are advised that the presented man-
ner of setting forth the obligee is not an irregulaity or
defect of such nature as would render the bonds invalid.
We would also call to your attention that any such situa-
tion may be easily remedied by means of a simple endorsement.
SUMMARY
Failure to precisely name the obligee
in a deputy sheriffs' bond does not render
Mr. W. C, Llndwy, Page 2 (~~-1485)
such bond invalid.
Sincerely,
WILL WILSON
Attorney General of Texas
PP:nss
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE:
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Pat Bailey
L. P. Lollar
Thomas H.'Peterson
REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Leonard Passmore