
    John Mason vs. Samuel Vance.
    "1. Evidence. In an action for replevin against officer for property taken wider execution. When a defendant in an execution Which is prima facie regular and valid, brings his action of replevin against an officer for property levied upon by virtue of said execution, he cannot show in support of said action that the judgment upon which the execution was founded has been paid. If, indeed, such be the fact, the debtor must resort to his remedy by petition for a supersedeas, and the issue of payment must be tried with the creditor, and not with the officer, who looks only to the process in his hands.
    2. Phocess. Sheriff. When an execution issued by a court having jurisdiction of the subject, is regular and valid upon its face, the simple duty of the officer into whose hands it is placed, is to execute the writ, as by it he is commanded; he is neither hound or permitted to enquire after the judgment, for his office in this respect, is ministerial only.
    EEOM CANNON.
    The defendant in error, as sheriff of the county of Cannon levied an execution regular and valid uj>on its face, upon a filly the property of the plaintiff in error who was the defendant in the execution. The plaintiff in error brought this action of replevin against the defendant to recover the property so levied upon; and at the trial of said action in the circuit court of Cannon, offered to prove that the judgment upon which said execution was founded had been paid. This evidence was excluded by his Honor, (Judge Maechbanks, presiding,) and there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed in error.
    C. B. Davis, for the plaintiff,
    cited act of 1835, ch. 17, § 7. jEason vs. Owmnmgs, 10 Humph., 210.
    G-. W. Thompson, for defendant,
    cited 4 Yerg., 186. 10 Yerg., 254. 2 Swan, 292. 4 Humph., 48-50. Rich. Sup., 243.
   Totten, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Replevin. The defendant, as sheriff of Cannon county, held executions in favor of one L. A. Kincannon, against the plaintiff, and levied the same on a filly, the property in question. The plaintiff, by the present suit, caused the property to be replevied, and at the trial, offered to prove in. support of his action, that the judgment on ■which said executions were founded, had been paid and satisfied before the same were issued. The evidence was rejected.

There was judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed in error to this court.

The evidence was properly rejected. When an execution, issued by a court having jurisdiction of the subject, is regular and valid upon its face, the simple duty of the officer is, that he execute the writ, as by it he is commanded. He is not bound to enquire after the judgment, or whether the same has been satisfied; nor is he permitted to do so, for his office in this respect, is merely ministerial. Ethridge vs. Edwards, 1 Swan’s R., 426.

. This is a settled doctrine, and by it the officer is protected in the execution of his office, and may also be enforced to perform it.

Now, in the present case, the executions, which appear to be regular and valid, afford a complete protection to the officer, and entitle him to the judgment of the court, that the property levied upon by him be restored to his possession, and be subject to said executions.

If, indeed, the judgments have been paid, the remedy of the debtor is by petition for a supersedeas, by which the execution will be legally suspended, until further action of the court.

The issue of payment must be with the creditor, and not with the officer, who looks only to the process in his hands.

Judgment affirmed.  