Wimberly v. Boland
Wimberly v. Boland
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The fact that Hiram Creekmore was, at the time of the issuance of the writ of attachment, which is assailed in the cause, acting as deputy for his father, and was generally recognized by the public as the deputy clerk, is too clearly shown by the evidence to admit of controversy. That, by reason of his minority, he could not have been lawfully appointed as such deputy, is not material, for a de facto officer is one who is such in fact but not in law, and minority is not different from any other legal disqualification. Throop on Public Officers, ch. 27; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., title de facto officers.
The failure of the deputy to sign his name as deputy to the writ, did not render it void. This was, at most, a mere irregularity, amendable under our statute. Gamble v. Trahen, 3 How. (Miss.), 32; Code 1892, § 3439; Spratley v. Kitchens, 55 Miss., 578.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- R. E. Wimberly v. M. M. Boland
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. De Facto Officer. Deputy. Minority. Issuance of writ. Where the son of a circuit clerk, though ineligible to appointment as deputy because of minority, acts as his father’s deputy, and is generally recognized by the public as such, he is a tie facto officer, and a writ of attachment issued by him as such deputy is not void. 2. Writ. Issuance by deputy. Signature. Amendment. Code 1892, \\ 3439. Where a deputy clerk issues an attachment writ in the name of the clerk, without affixing his name as deputy, the writ is not void. At most, this is only an irregularity, and amendable. Code 1892, l 3439; Spratley v. Kitchens, 55 Miss., 578.