
    GLOVER v. LUMPKIN, survivor.
    June 12, 1896. By two Justices. Argued at the last term.
    Appeal. Before Judge Eish. Sumter superior court. May term, 1895.
    In the county court Lumpkin, surviving partner, for the use of Snow, Ohurch & Co., filed his petition for rule against the county court bailiff, for not making the money on an execution placed in his hands, alleged to have been levied on the property of defendant in execution of sufficient value to satisfy the execution, it being alleged that tbe bailiff bad levied on tbe property but refused to bring it to sale and make tbe money. Tbe bailiff answered, admitting that be levied on tbe property and that it was of sufficient value to pay tbe fi. fa., but denying that be failed or refused to sell tbe property. He alleged, that wben tbe property was levied on defendant claimed it and gave bond for tbe same; that wben tbe case was called for bearing it appeared that tbe .attorney for defendant signed tbe claim affidavit, apd for some inadvertency tbe affidavit was not properly attested, and the same was either withdrawn or dismissed; that then tbe defendant filed a claim and gave good and sufficient bond for tbe forthcoming of tbe property ; and that tbe claim is now pending in -the county court. Tbe rule was made absolute against tbe constable for $57.01 principal, besides interest and costs. He entered an appeal to tbe superior court. In that court plaintiff moved to dismiss tbe appeal, because it was a case that was not appealable to tbe superior court, and tbe superior court •bad no jurisdiction of tbe case by appeal. Tbe motion was sustained, and tbe bailiff excepted.
   Lumpkin, J.

This being a money rule against a bailiff of a county court, upon the trial of which no evidence was introduced, and nothing was adjudicated except that his answer was insufficient to discharge him, he could not by an appeal to the superior court review a judgment of the county court making the rule absolute. The only question being whether or not the officer was in contempt of the court for a failure to perform his duty, and this being, under the facts set forth in his answer, entirely a question of law, there was no issue for a jury to try, and consequently the proper remedy was by certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Fort & Watson and L. J. Blalock, for plaintiff in error.  