Nili. Sty. 353. Mich. 1652. Bond v. Martin. murs> an d
held a good
Demurrer; for he ought to have pleaded Nen D.innnf.r.tns, and not generally that he has faved him
harmlefs, for that he may do in many Thing, and yet the Plaintiii may be damnified in fome other
Things, wherein he was alfo bound to fave him harmlefs. The Rule was to fhc»v the Caufe why
Judgment Ihould not be given for the Plaintiff. Sty. 16 Fafeh 15 Car. W rpath v. Elleye.
2. Sheriff brought Debt on Bond conditienci for Payment of 120/. with- Comb. 245.
out faying more. The Defendant pleads, That it was /< 1 and Jfa- s
vour; Plaintiii' replies, That it was that Defendant ihould remain a true 1
Prifoner, and traverfes the Eafe &c. Defendant demurs, and Judgment.
waa
448
Sheriff.
for the bet- >vas given for Dciendant ; Becaufe Plaintiff, of his own fhewine, had
terfecuring ni . u j e tne Eond void at Common Laws it appearing upon Over "of the
to hirafclf Condition, that it was made lor the Payment 01 a certain Sum ot Mo-
andtravciTcd ney ; and yet in the Inducement to the Traverfe in his Replication he
the Eafe &c alleg'd, that it was made for the Sheriff's Security, that R. the Prifoner
and Dctcn- mou [d not e fcapc. Now this is an Averment againft the Condition of the
nfufrd" p er Bond to which an Obligee pall never be admitted; belides it is not law-
Cur. Itisan ful for the Plaintiff to take an ablblute Bond, with a Condition to pay
Money under Pretence ol Securitv againft Efcapes, w ithout mentioning-
• but it. Carth. 300, 301. Pafch. 6 \\ . 3. B. R. Foden v. Haines.
ill Ir.d
rnent, u
fubftantial P;rt of the Pica, but only Matter of Form ; and if we cad awav the Inducement the Tra-
verfe is well; hut here you confound the Caufe of Action in this Inducement, but you fliould have
laid that it wis Pro bono 6c vero Debito, and then traveried the Eafe and Favour.
(W) Attachments againft him, In what Cafes, and
to whom directed.
Br Reple- i. f g ">HE Sheriff' upon Replevin did nothing at tire Alias , or at the Plu-
v . in ' $'2; X w«j < ir >d Procefs ilfued to the Coroners to attach the Sheriff
cites . c. anc j to ma j ie R e pi e ^ nj Quod Nota; and the Coroners returned, Thac
they had attached the Sheriff, and he did not come, by which iffhed Dijlrtfs,
Quod Nota ; Procefs ol the Contempt. Br. Contempt, pi. i. cites 43
E. 3 26.
2. Judgment was given againft one in B. R. Capias iffued to the late
Sheriff to take ccc. the Party paid the Fee lor the Execution, and the
Sheriff received the Writ of the Plaintiff, and h&Jhewed the Defendant to
the Sheriff, and he viewed him, but he turned about and [aid, I cannot fee
him, and after returned a Nan eft inventus ; the Party made an Affidavit
ot this Matter, and prayed an Attachment againft the late Sheriff Jones
J. faid, he is now no Officer ; to which it was faid,That this was a Con-
tempt during his Office; and Doderidge and Jones J. granted an Attach-
ment. Lat. 176. Hill. 2 Car. Anon.
3. If Sheriff of a Comity in a City be in Contempt, the Attachment is to
go to the Coroner, and not to the Mayor or Chiet Officer of the Corpo-
ration in fuch City or Town. And if the Offender be out of his Of-
fice, the Attachment fhall be dirccled to the New Sheriff 2 Vent 216
Mich. 2 W. & M. C. B. Anon.
4. An Under-Sheriff returned a Fieri Feci, and ^Venditioni Exponas was
fued out; after two or three Rules upon the Sheriff to make a Return, and.
Failure therein, an Attachment was granted againft him, the Court de-
claring they never would grant it againlt the High Sheriff for not return-
ing the Writ. And fuch a Rule was made the fame Term in the like
Cafe againft the Under-Sheriff of York. 12 Mod. 454. Pafch. 13 Yv". 3.
B. R. Kilderton v. Wilkenfon.
5. The Sheriff made a Return of a Ccpi Corpus, but would not bring in
the Body: Upon which the Plaintiff' had obtained fever al Rules upon the
Sheriff to bring in the Body; But the Sheriff Jltll flood out in Contempt,
and therefore the Plaintiff prayed now an Attachment againft him. But
the Court upon hearing the Rules read, faid, There was not one pe-
remptory Rule, and therefore the Motion for an Attachment was irre-
gular at prefent. However, upon Counfel's deliring then a peremptory-
Rule, the Court granted it. And in another Cafe they faid, That A-
mercements
Sheriff. 449
mercements only ufed to be the Method of inforcing thefe Rules, but
lately they have granted Attachments, i Barnard. Rep. in B. R. 246.
Mich. 3 Geo. 2. 1729. Smith v. Norton.
(X) AB'ions agahijl him. Trefpafs, or Cafe, or Debt.
I. y^vEKT ; at the Diftrefs the Sheriff dijlrains J. B. where the Name
J_^J of the Defendant in the Writ is T. B. there J. B. fhall have his
Remedy againft the Sheriff; and it feems by General Action or Trefpafs.
Er. Trcipab, pi. 135. cites 19 H. 6. 80.
2. But where hejerves the Writ truly, and imbezils it, vr makes a falfe
Return, it Teems that Action upon the Cafe lies. But contrary oiAtiual
fort, ut fupra. Br. Trefpafs, pi. 135. cites 19 H. 6. 80.
3. Debt does not lie ag.unlt a Sheriff upon an Efcape upon mefne Procefs,
but an Action on the Cafe only. 1 Vent. 7. Hill. 20 & 21 Car. 2. B.
R. Anon.
(Y) Aclions by him, in RefpsQ: of his Oinee.
"iHE Sheriff levied Goods by a Fieri Facias, and before Execution
done by Sale, the Defendant took them again; the Sheriff' brought
frefpt'Cs. The Queftion was, Whether it lay for the Sheriff, becaufe
he had no Propercy in the Goods. Fenner only being in Court faid, He
had conferr'ri with Anderfon Ch. J. and Periam, who held clearly that
the Action did lie. Cro. E. 639. pi. 39. Mich. 40 & 41 Eliz.. B. R. Tyr-
rel v. Bcitn. . . r
2. So the Sheriff feifed Goods by Virtue of a Fieri Facias, and the £ev. *»».
lvne Rainsford andMoreton, Tiseiitante Twifden, gave Judgment for Sheriff in
tor the Plaintiff. Vent. 52 & j 3 . Hill 21 & 22 Car. 2. B. R. Wilbra- Jg,^.
ham V. Snow. ' tain Tref-
pafs, but not
Trover the whole Court held e contra, and that the Sheriff had Property fufficient to maintain this
A£tion,and Judgment accordingly; andKeelingCh. J. faid, That the Property is altered from the Owner,
and given to the Party, at whofe Suit; the Reporter adds, Qasre de ceo. Sid. 4^8. pi. 5. S C. adjudg-
ed accordingly, ai d fiid, That the Sheriff has fuch Property, that if he lofes the Goods h; (hall aniwer
f or t hem. " z Saund. 4-. S. C adjudged accordingly, Nifi &c. and fays, it was not moved afterwards.
— -Mod. 30 pi. ; 5. S. G. but not adjudged.
(Z) Pleadings
Sheriff
(Z) Pleadhtgs by him, and Bailiff
1. 1 a ' Refpafs of Goods taken, the Defendant faid that he is Sheriff
J^ of C. and that Exigent of Felony iffued againfi the Plaintiff] by
which he took the Goods. Ic was objected that he had not counted of
them ; But per Keble, That it is no Matter to you but to the King,
and he lhall account to the King alter. Br. Trefpafs, pi. 267. cites 3
H. 7- 3-
Hob. 206. pi. 2 . A Levari facias ifTued upon a Recognizance in Chancery for 2000 /.
260 h -( "i t ' ie ^ ner 'h l return'd that he had levied 500 /. towards Satisfaction of the
accor Hutton HaintifPs Debt, and that he had Denarws paratos &c. but becaufe he
11, 12. S C. did not pay it in, the Plaintiff brought Aftion of Debt againit, him. The
accordingly. Defendant, as to 300 /. Part, pleaded Nil debet, and as to 200 /. that be-
Kanieof ie and fhew'd his Acquittance. The Pl'intiff demurred ; and alter feveral
Spark v. Ri- Arguments it was adjudg'd for the Plaintiff lor the 300 1. and that as to
chards, S. C. the 200 1. Nil capiat per Breve, becaufe the Receipt thereof, and the Ac-
accordingly. g U i tta „ ce ^ js confefsd by the Demurrer. Mo. 886. pi. 1244. Pafch. 15
S^c" J ac - Speake v. Richards.
fays, Note
the Plaintiff had concluded his Demurrer ill ; For he, demurring to the Defendant's Plea, which was
grounded upon a Re ; ea*e, fhouldhave demanded Judgment, if the Defendant Jhculd be admitted to plead a
Releafe made after the Sheriff made bis Return.
3. A Sheriff having levied Money upon a Fieri facias, the Plaintiff
brought Debt againfi him lor the Money. He pleaded the Statute of Li-
mitations ; and the fole Queftion was, \Vhether this was an Action that
was within that Statute ? And refolved by North, Windham, and At-
kins, (Scroggs contra) That that Statute was no Bar in this Cale, be-
caufe this Action is grounded partly upon Matter of Record ; for the
Fieri facias iffues out of this Court, and is returnable here. But in this
Cafe the Sheriff had made no Return of his Writ ; and therefore Scroggs
faid he was only chargeable by the Receipt of the Money, which was
an Aftion in Pais; and for that Reafon he did conceive he fhould be
within the Benefit of this Statute ; but it he had made his Return, then
he had been chargeable by that, and then he ihould have been of Opi-
nion that the Statute ihould be no Bar. North, It is his Fault that he
makes not his Return, and therefore he Hull not take Advantage of it.
Judgment was given by the 3 Judges proQuer'. Freem. Rep. 236, 237.
pi. 248. Mich. 1677. Cockram v. YVelby.
4. A Sheriff's Mandate to a Bailiff of a Liberty , mult be under the
under the Hand and Seal of the Sheriff, and fo pleaded. Per Powell J.
2 Vent. 193. Car v. Donne.
5. trefpafs &c. for taking and carrying away £rV. feveral Goods, the
Defendant juflified by Virtue of an Haberefacias Poffejjionem upon a Judg-
ment in Ejeclment ckc. and that he as Sheriff, and the other Defendants
in Aid of him enter 'd cvc. Et Bona &c. in Executione brevis prsed. ex-
tra Domum amoverunt. Upon Demurrer Judgment was given for the
Plaintiff, becaufe the Plea was not a fufficient Anfwer to the carrying
away the Goods ; for the Defendants ought to pew in their Plea to what
Plicc the Goods were carried, and where they lejt them. 2 Lutw. 1483.
Trin. 11 W. 3. Rowley v. Haffard & al\
(A. a) Dt-
Sheriff. 451
(A. a) Determination of Office. By what.
i. * I ^ H E Office of Sheriff does not determine by becoming a Peer on hi&
X Father's Death. Held by all the Juitices, and the Attorney and
Sollickor-General, but that he ftill remains a Sheriff ad "Voluntatem Re-
gins. Cro. E. 12. pi. 3. 25 Eliz. C. B. Sir Lewis Mordant's Cafe.
(B. a) Di (charged by Writ, and of Ac~ta done by him
before Notice.
1. A Writ of Difcharge of the Old Sheriff was delivered to the County But 57 &
jf\ Clerk fitting in the Comity Court in the Abfence of the Sheriff Per 5 s E1 ' 7 - p e?
Dyer and Man wood J. his Authority ceafes. D. 355. pi. 36. Hill. 19 ^ d w r °?
Eliz. Anon. fl" y j ^
is not difcharged before the new Sheriff has accepted the County of him. Ibid. Marg. Koy 51. S. P.
Per Anderlbn and Walmiiey. Burchfer v. Wifeman.
2. The Writ of Difcharge is not clofe, but patent, as a CommifTion,
and is directed Nitper ViceComiti, reciting the Words of the Patent of the
new Sheriff, with a Command to the old Sheriff to deliver the Cujlody of
the Coun y f ctlm omnibus Rotates Brevibus & aliis Memorandis per Inden-
turam to the new Sheriff. D. 355. pi. 36. Anon.
3. Fajfe Imprifmment was brought againft St. John, who pleaded in Bar s.C. cited
that he at the Time of the Imprifonment was Sheriff of Wiltfhire, and D. 35$.
that a Capias was dire&ed to him to take the Plaintiff, by which he took War g- P.'-
and imprifoned him. The Plaintiff replied that one Earnely was then andleerast
Sheriff, and travers'd that St. John was Sheriff; the Defendant rejoin'd be S. c it
that he was Sheriff tor all the Year before, and had no Notice of the Pa- being by
tent to Earnely, and that he had received no Difcharge ibr himfelfj and the iame
upon Demurrer the Defendant had Judgment, becauie all Acts which he fodafa^
hath done as Sheriff, are good in Law till he has received his Difcharge, Year, v\t
or has perfeel; Notice of the new Sheriff. Mo. 186. pi. 338. Mich. 26 Mich. 368c
Eliz. B. R. St. John's Cale. 3: Eliz.
J B. R. Mo
364 pi. 495.
4. The Ancient Sheriff' is not difcharged, nor the New Sheriff charged, 3 Pep. -2.
till 3 Things are done, viz. The * Patent to the New Sheriff, the Writ Weftby's
of Difcharge to the Old Sheriff, and the Delivery of the Prifoners by In- ^[ e V S ' a C .
denture to the New Sheriff. Arg. And by all the Court (abfente Gawdy) fhewing it C
This Delivery by Indenture was by Order of the Common Law. Cro. to the old
E. 366. Hill. 37 Eliz. B. R. Wesby v. Skinner and Catcher. Sheriff And
if in the
mean Time betwe.n the fealing the new Patent, and the fliewing it to him, he holds a County Court
it is good. Cro E. 12. pi 2 Mich. 25 Eliz. C B Fitz's Cafe
The Prifoners ought to be brought to the View of the new Sheriff. 2 Le. 54. Smalman v. Lane.- .
And ought to be delivered to him in the Common Gaol, and not eliewheie. Cro. £. 366.
5. A Writ of Difcharge was delivered to the Sheriff his TJnder-Jheriffi . f^^??*
not knowing it makes Execution in the Country i and adjudged no Execu- c i te( j a Tudg-
45 2 Sheriff.
'merit, that tion, and vet Sheriff no Trefpaflbr. D. 355. Marg. pi. 36. cites Pafch.
Execution E[iz q B Fleming v. Cheverlv.
by Ba 1 1 ; It ■" & J
after Superfedeas delivered to the Sheriff, is void. Ibid. But where A. recovered 1 00 1. againft B.
and had a Fieri facias, the Sheriff levied 2S 1. and had not returned the Writ nor paid the Money to
A. in Action on the Cafe by A. againll the Sheriff Defendant pleaded Xot Guilty. Upon Evidence
it appe:ir:d that the Writ was delivered to J. S. the Under-Sheriff, 9 November ;4 Eliz- who executed it the
fame Day. And tie f.ime Day a Writ of Difcharge was delivered to him, Anted 6th November ; but be-
1 rot prove that he had Nctice of this Writ of Difcharge before the Execution ferv'd, the
Court held clearly tli.it he was yet Sheriff, and chargeable to the Plaintiffs Action. C10. £. 443. Mich.
57 & 3a Llii. C. B. Boucher v. Wifeman.
(C. a) Trxo Sheriffs coniider'd. How.
1. IN London and Middlefex both Sheriffs make but one in both Coun-
Jl ties ; and therefore it feems to be a good Caufe of Challenge, ii
the Writ appears to be return'd by one Sheriff only ; and if one oi them
dies, the Office is at an End tiil another is chofen. The rirlt Beginning of
this Caftom leems to be upon the Foundation of the Charter of K. John,
who granted the Sheriffwick of London and Middlefex, to the Mayor
and Citizens oi London, at the Farm ol 300 l.per Ann. So that being a
Grant in Fee of the Sheriffwick to them as a Corporation, they had a
Right to name one or more Officers, in order to execute the fame ; and
they thought it proper to name two Officers indifferently to execute both
Offices, and both of them to execute as one Sheriff, tho' the Writ in
Middlefex is directed to them as one, viz. Vic'. Com'. Middx. Prsecipimus
tibi; in that of London Vice Comitibus London'. Pra?cipim' -vobis : And
the Reafon of this Difference feems to be, that belbre this Grant oi' the
Sheriffwick to the Corporation, the Corporation nominated to the Crown,
and the Crown appointed the Sheriffs lor London, and the London She-
riffs were reiponhble to the King for the London Profits of the Sheriff-
wick; and that was the Reafon why two were appointed, that both
might be refponlible ; and this Nomination was, that the Citizens might
exhibit to the King refponlible Perfons; and that feems to be the Realbn
that in many of the Corporations that are Cities and Counties, there are
two Sheriffs ; but when by the Charter of King John, the Sheriffwick of
London and Middlefex was granted to the Citizens as a perpetual Fee-
Farm, then they entered their Sheriffs, which before were nominated for
London only, and the Election of the two was for both Sheriffwicks,
but the Directions of the King's Writs were as before, viz. in Lon-
don to the two Sheriffs, and in Middlefex, as if there was only one.
G. Hilt. ofC. B. 136, 137. cites 3 Co. 72. 1 Show. 289. 162, 163. 2 Show.
262, 2S6. Lev. 284. Priv. of London, fo. 5, 6, 7. 272, 273. Hob. 70.
I Salk. ija. 2. An Information was brought againji 3, whereof one of them was one
I I - , SA ": _ of the Sheriffs of the City of Chefter, and the Venire facias was aw
For > 'the S ' f ' t0 ^ :c ct ^ Hr Sheriff It was fnggejhd on the Roll, that one oi the Sheriffs
other may is Party. The Queliion was, Whether it was good? And it was ad-
execute the judged to be well awaidcd. And as to an Objection which had been
Writ, but 'rnade, That both are hut one Officer in Law, it is plainly orherwiie ;
J, . /H ripe 1 Y * *
in the Name f° r vvhere there are 2 Shcrifis, and one is chalkng'd, the other (hall fup-
or both. plv that Defect, and not the Coroner; lor he is not the Perfon to execute
Show. 527. the Procels of this Court, but only where the Proper Officer is wanting
s c - 3 |" _ which cannot be where there is one Sheriff 4 Mod. 65, 66. Mich. 3 W.
Comb*™ 1. & ^- ^- ^- m ^ a ^ c ot c ' ie k-' n § an ^ Qy- Cn v - Warrington, cites 22 H.
S. C. Pafch. 6. 51. b. pi 17.
4 W.&M.
B. R. Anon, accordirgly. 12. Med. 22. S.C. accordingly—- .Carth. 214 Fill, s W. & M.
S. C. accordingly, cites ic as lb held in the dies of Bethel v Harvey, and ol Rich v. Pla
3- If
e
Sheriff. 4.53
3 If one Sheriff or Coroner die, the Court can award no Procefs to
the other. Per Cur. 4 Mod. 65. Mich. 3 W.& M. B. R. The King
and Queen v. Warrington.
(D. a) Judge. In what Cafes the Sheriff is Judge. (H. 5)
See Judges
(H. 2)
Suitors.
-s
1 Heriff in the County cannot quaft_ Effoign, nor do other Act
_j there, without Aflent of the Suitors; for it is only a Court
Baron j and if he does it, Action upon the Cafe litis, and not Writ of
Falfe Judgment ; quod nota bene inde. Br. Court Baron, pi. 19. cites
29 Air. 45.
2. In * Rediffeifin, and in f Writ of Enquiry of Wafte, the Sheriff is * S. P. Br.
Officer, Judge, and Commijfioncr ; and therefore if he allows Challenges cJ [^' i p H 4 '
therein, Writ of Error lies, and not Action upon the Cafe. Br. Com- 4 g
miffioners, pi. 23. cites 2 H. 4. 2. t S.P. Br.
J Procefs,
pi. 57. cites II H. 4. 82.
3. Upon the Statute ol Mcrton cap. 3. the Sheriff is Judge in Rediffeifin
qfl'umptis fecttra Coronatonbus ; yet the Sheriff only is Judge : But with-
out Coroners the Judgment is void. Jenk. 181. pi. 66. cites 39 H. 6. 42.
29 AIT pi. 42.
(E. a) Matters relating to Things done or begun in the Sj^J
Time of a former Sheriff. p 1 - 2 > ?•
1. T N frefpafs at the Capias the Sheriff' returned Quod cepit Corpus, and S.P Br.
J[ had not the Body at the Day, by which he was amerced i and be- Procefi, p'-
caufe the Old Sheriff was removed, therefore Diftrefs ilfued to the New I'^u^Sz.
Sheriff to diltrain the Old Sheriff Ad habendum Corpus. Br. Retorn — s. P. '
de Briefs, pi. 19. cites 44 E. 3. 2. Br. Procefs,
P l. 42.
cites 14 H, 4. 11.
2. The Return of the one Sheriff fh all not conclude the other ; quod nota.
Br. Retorn de Briefs, pl. 5. cites 3 H. 6. 56.
3. I'he Sheriff' returns upon a Fieri facias, Quod cepit Bona ad Valentiam Br. Procefs,
&c. ad quod non invenit emptores; whereupon a Venditioni exponas ilfued, P'i5- cues
and the Sheriff returned, That W. N. his Predecelfor took them, and ■ ■
therefore Venditioni exponere non potuit &c By which ilfued Diftringas
fiupcr Vicecon' ad Venditioni exponend' & Denarios liberand? nunc Ficecom'
ita quod Bona ilia Venditioni exponat &c Denarios inde provenient' libe-
rari faciat nunc Vicecomiti ut ipfe Denarios illos hie habere poffit tali
Die ad Satisfaciend' querenti de Debito & Damnis predict. Br. Execu-
tion, pl. n. cites 34 H. 6. 36.
4. Where the O'ld Sheriff return'' d upon Fieri facias, Quod Fieri feci 10I. S.P. Becau e
and has not the Money at the Day, Scire facias mall lllue to the New $*""&. ad
Sheriff againlt him, and upon this a Fieri facias and Elegit. Br. Procefs, ha b cn dum
pl. 32. cites 9 E. 4. 50. Denar' &c.
is too long
Pmcefs &c. <,uod rota. Br. Executions, pl.6> cites S. C. Br. Retorn de Briefsj pl. 55. cites
S. C- Br. Scire facias, pl. 134. cites S.C.
5 Z 5- I"
454-
Shenff.
* All the 5. In 'Trcfpafs the Sheriff returned the Defendant Capttts ci" Languidus
>nsare j„ Prifona, by which DiJInfs iff'ued after the Year againft this Sheriff to
theWord the Nevv sheriff t0 dijirain the Old Sheriff, Ad habendum Corpus &c. and
(Proof ) is the SheriiF returned If lues 3 s. Philpot laid, The Old Sheriff is dead
more ngvee- &c. and here is * Proof thereof. And Per Cur. This ought to come in
able to the by Return of the Sheriff, and the Sheriff has return'd him diftrained,
by which Alias Diitringas iffued. Br. Procefs, pi. 121. cites 22 E. 4. 1.
6. There was an Habeas Corpus to H. the now Sheriff of B. ad recipicncC
&c. one W. iv ho was in Execution when one B. was Sheriff, and left in Goal
when C. fuccceded to B. and never turned over by Indenture to C. nor to
H. the prefent Sheriff, but was Jf ill in Goal, and charged with a new Exe-
cution, which H. was ready to return, but pray'd to be excufed from
returning the firft Execution, becaufe he was never in his Cuitody upon
it. The Court held, That as to thcf.rjl Execution, hejlill remained in the
Cujlody of B. tho' his Body was actually in the Cuitody of the New
Sheriff; and that the Difference between this and J©Cftbp's Cafe, is, That
there the Prifoner was turned over for one Debt, but not for the other ;
and therefore it was an Efcape as to the Debt for which he was turned
over. And after it was agreed, That B. the old Sheriff ihould turn him
over to the prefent Sheriff by Indenture, without taking Notice of C.
the intermediate Sheriff; for he was never in his Cuftody, and then he
would make Return of all the Executions ; quod nota. Sid. 335. pi. 21.
Pafch. 19 Car. 2. B. R. Hanmer v. Winmer.
2 Mod. 217. rj. J. S. had Judgment in Debt againlt C. and had a Writ of Execution
Car L 2 C B t0 ** t ' ie Sheriff > but before it was executed, C. procured a Super fedeas to
Calthrop v. P- wno a f tcr bis Tear was expired delivered over all Writs to the New 6
Phillips, i.C riff except this Superfedeas ; whereupon ].S. got a new Writ of Execution
and Judg- f fjjg j\[ ew Sheriff, upon which the Goods of C. being taken, he brought
his jiclion againjl P. for not delivering over this Superfedeas ; And after
ment was
given ac-
cordingly-* a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arreft of Judgment, That
Mifi ; and this Action would not lie, becaufe a Superfedeas is not a Writ returna-
as to the ble, and is only a Warrant to the Sheriff for not obeying the Writ of
Thatch "' Execution, he is not bound to deliver it over to the new Sheriff The
Old Sheriff Prothonotaries faid, The Courfe was to take out a new Writ to the new
might have Sheriff: But the Court inclined, That fince he is bound to deliver over
Occafion to the Capias tor the Plaintiff's Benefit, he fhould likewife deliver over the
plea "V'd" Superfedeas for the Defendant's Benefit j and that an A£tion will lie
That he' againlt the Old Sheriff for not delivering fome Writs, tho' they are nor.
might have returnable, As a Writ of Eftrepement. Mod. 22. pl.i 1. Mich. 2SCar. 2.
Recourfe to C. B. Calthrop v. Philippo.
it in the r rr
New Sheriff 's Office, and that he cou'd have no Title to it by the Direction of the Writ ; For that is
Vicecomiti Berks, and not to him by his expreis Chriftian and Surname.
8. It was held Per Cur. That an AJJtgnment of Prifoner s by an Under
Sheriff to the fuccccdiug High Sheriff (tho' not by Indenture) is a good Af-
fignment. Barnes's Notes in C. B. 271. Mich. 6 Geo. 2. Poulter v.
Greenwood.
For more of Sheriff in General, See SppCatattCC, CfrrCff, 'Bail, "DZ'-
fault,
Simony.
*55
I
Simony.
(A)
Statutes 5 and what is within them.
I. 31 Eliz. cap. 6. TF any Perfon or Perfons, Bodies Politick or Corporate, * This A&
Seel. 2. X * which have Elecfion, Nomination, Voice, or Af- bein S a Law
feat in the Choice, Eleclion, Presentation, or Nomination of any Scholar, ["hefc Words
Fellow, or any other Perfon, to have Room or Place in any Church Colle- extend not
giate or Cathedral, Colleges, Schools, Hofpicals, Halls, or Societies, only to fuch
jhall take or receive any Money, Fee, or Reward £
&c. of the Offender, frail be void &c. LatTbat
Time had
Election, Prefentation &c. but to all and everv Perfon and Perfons that at any Time hereafter Jhould haze
Eleclion, Prefentation &c. otherwife the Law fhould be but temporary, which fliould be directly againit
the Meaning of the Makers of the Act; And by the fame Reafon this Acl: extends not only to Churches,