Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 51 / R.S. of 1846
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 51.68 (2026)

Sheriff; bond; penal sum; approval; surety.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Revised Statutes of 1846


R.S. of 1846


51.68 Sheriff; bond; penal sum; approval; surety.

Sec. 68.

    As determined by the county board of commissioners, the sheriff either shall be covered by a blanket bond or shall give a bond to the people of this state in the penal sum of at least $10,000.00. The individual bond shall be approved by the county board of commissioners, and secured by a surety company authorized to do business in this state.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 14 ;-- CL 1857, 409 ;-- CL 1871, 550 ;-- How. 578 ;-- CL 1897, 2577 ;-- CL 1915, 2441 ;-- CL 1929, 1323 ;-- CL 1948, 51.68 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 255, Imd. Eff. May 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 25, Imd. Eff. Feb. 26, 1974 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 635, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 1979

Compiler's Notes:

    This section as originally enacted was numbered section 69.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1970–2018 · leading case: People v. Van Tubbergen, 642 N.W.2d 368 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Van Tubbergen, 642 N.W.2d 368 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “m MICHIGAN STATUTES The office of county sheriff is constitutionally created, Const 1963, art 7, § 4, and the duties and authority of the sheriff are established by statute, MCL 51.68 et seq. Capitol City Lodge 141, FOP v Meridian Twp, 90 Mich App 533, 539 ; 282 NW2d 383 (1979).”
Capitol City Lodge No 141, Fraternal Order of Police v. Meridian Twp., 282 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “MCL 51.68 et seq.; MSA 5.861 et seq. The sheriff and the County Board of Commissioners are joint employers of deputy sheriffs, with the sheriff controlling their appointment and tenure in position, MCL 51.”
Coleman v. Bolton, 180 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “587); and he is required to execute a bond in favor of the people of the State of Michigan to secure the faithful performance of his duties, MCLA § 51.68 ' (Stat Ann 1961 Rev § 5.861).”
James Sottile v. Cnty. of Monroe (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “In addition, Sheriff Malone and plaintiff both testified that the Sheriff’s Office maintained and controlled the no-preference list, and imposed requirements for inclusion on the list.”
James Sottile v. Cnty. of Monroe (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “In addition, Sheriff Malone and plaintiff both testified that the Sheriff’s Office maintained and controlled the no-preference list, and imposed requirements for inclusion on the list.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.