
    Paddock against Cameron.
    Case against the defendant, as under sheriff of the county Warren, for a false return to a writ of fi. fa. The cause was tried at the Warren circuit, June 20th, 1825, before Duer, C. Judge.
    aPPeare<l upon the trial, that the defendant was the under sheriff of Dudley Farlin, Esq., who, at the fall electi°n °f 1823, was elected a member of assembly; and his Offioe therefore, vacated on the 1st of January, lSÍSi^The 1 J 3 defendant exercised the office of. sheriff, until a new one was elected and qualified, in March, 1824. They?, fa. in question was delivered to the defendant on the 23d of January, 1824. A verdict was found for the defendant; and now
    
      In general, not lie^agatost an under she-breach of duty in
    Where office of sheriff cant™by his election to another office, or by any cause beside his natural death, the under sheriff cannot execute the duties of sheriff, within the statute, (1 R. L. 420, s. 5.)
    
      Senib. the office and duty of sheriff, in such case, devolve on the coronors.
    
      A motion was made by the plaintiff for a new trial on several grounds; and opposed on the ground, among others, that the defendant’s office of under sheriff expired with that of Mr. Farlin, the sheriff.
    
      JS, W. Paddock, for the motion.
    
      W. Say, contra.
   Curia, per Woodworth, J.

I do not consider it necessary to examine the question, whether the evidence sufficiently establishes the fact of a false return; being of opinion that this action does not lie against the under sheriff.

The general rule is, that an action will not lie against an under sheriff, for a breach of duty in his office, although *he may, as well as any other agent, make himself personally responsible by a special undertaking. (Cameron v. Reynolds, Cowp. 403; Tuttle v. Love, 7 John. 472.)

The inquiry then is, whether a case like the present is provided for by the statute, (1 R. L. 418, 420, s. 5.) By this act, it is declared that the sheriff shall appoint an under sheriff, and in case of the death of the. sheriff, the under sheriff shall, in all things, execute thébffiee of sheriff until another sheriff shall be appointed ; and the^ defaults and misfeasances in office of such under sheriff, shall be adjudged a breach of the condition of the bond given by the sheriff who appointed him ; and the executors or administrators of the deceased sheriff shall have remedy for his defaults or misfeasances.

The act farther provides that if there be no under sheriff, at the time of the death of the sheriff, or if such under sheriff shall die, or remove out of the county, or become incapable of executing the office, before another sheriff shall be appointed, in every such case the coroner or coroners shall, in all things, execute the office of sheriff, until a .s!l®rcff .shall be. appointed, and take,, upon himself the offence.

mi The act. specifies only the natural death of, the sheriff, That did not happen; and, consequently, the defendant derived no .authority, under this statute, to take, the place of the sheriff. Whether this county, on the, election of Mr. Farlin to the legislature, were, left without any person to discharge the duties of sheriff, is not material-to the point before us. It is enough that the defendant had no authority to act. I incline, however, to the opinion, that by a reasonable construction of the statute, the right to discharge the duties of sheriff devolved on the coroners; inasmuch as one of the contingencies upon which this right depends, is, that the under, sheriff becomes incapable of executing the office. This event has taken place.

The motion for a new trial is denied.

Hew. trial denied. 
      
       A deputy sheriff, who has commenced the execution of procesa by a levy on the property of the defendant, during the term of the -office of his principal, may, after the expiration of such term, proceed and complete the execution thereof by the giving of a deed. Tuttle v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 213.
     