
    John Campbell against John Chiles.
    before paid over express oS byj>ia1nt1ir™ii {£®cy“\V\i« thTtcvS01,1611 ^i'um Slíie score1 ¿c ™ Purchase made by Sfesfiiewlo be toVtapiiintut™1
    This was an action to recover moneys collected by the defendant, as Sheriff of Abbeville District, on an execution in the name of the plaintiff The defence was, that the money had * been paid over to James Cobb, the agent of the plaintiff but the Sheriff had no receipt for the money from Cobb. The evidence was., that Cobb had purchased a tract of land at Sheriff’s sale, and directed the Sheriff to apply the money collected on plaintiff’s execution to the payment of his purchase, and which had been done accordingly. As proof of Cobb’s being the authorized agent a o c the plaintiff to receive his moneys, testimony ivas adduced, showing that he was the son-in-law the plaintiff and his partner in trade, and that the Sheriff had occasionally paid moneys to him on plaintiff’s account, without an order, and three different receipts on the Sheriff’s books, where money had been paid thus to him, were adduced as evidence, in which it appeared the plaintiff had acquiesced.
    The presiding Judge, Mr. Justice Johnson, in his charge to the Jury, told them, that something more was necessary, in his opinion, to be proved, for the purpose of showing that Cobb was the authorized agent of the plaintiff, and as such entitled to receive his moneys. The J ury, however, .on the foregoing proofs, found a verdict for the defendant; and the present is a motion to set the same aside, as being contrary to law and evidence, it not being proved that Cobb was Campbell’s agent, a d because it was proved that the Sheriff appropriated the money to pay a private debt of Cobb’s.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gantt.

This case is confined within narrow limits. The question of agency was a fact to be decided on by the Jury. They were of the vicinage, and better qualified to judge of circumstances in relation thereto than the presiding Judge. The presiding Judge, in animadverting on the testimony, very correctly stated to the Jury, that the evidence was by no means conclusive as to the fact of general agency, thereby putting the Jury on their guard against a hasty decision of the case. They found a verdict for the defendant, notwithstanding the opinion of the Court to the contrary.

On a review of the circumstances of this case, Í am of opinion that the verdict should stand. The Sheriff had before paid moneys to Cobb, on account of the plaintiff and he had acquiesced therein. His relative situation with the plaintiff rendered it probable that such authority might have been delegated; and when to this is added the circumstance of the plaintiff acquiescing in three payments made to Cobb, as his agent, th«Jury had certainly strong grounds to rest upon, that he was authorized also to settle with the Sheriff in this case. The money having been appropriated agreeably to Cobb's order, in ment for land, purchased by him at Sheriff’s sale, does not alter the case. If he was duly authorized to receive, he could, on the payment being made to him, apply the money in this way; and his order to the Sheriff to apply the money in payment of a purchase made by him at Sheriff’s sale, is tantamount to a receipt and payment by himself. I think the verdict should stand.

Grimhé, Cokoch, and JYoíf, J. concurred.  