
    John Taylor vs. Robert Howren.
    Where a sheriff was ruled fay a plaintiff for not collecting' the money under a fi.fa. and shewed for cause, that he had levied upon a horse, the only property he could find, which horse had faeen taken out of his hands ,by a writ of replevin of a third person, who claimed the horse, the Court Held, that the sheriff was bound to obey the writ, and that the cause shewn was sufficient.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Georgetown district,
    The plaintiff had obtained a rule against Moses Fort, sheriff of Georgetown district, requiring him to shew cause, why an attachment should not issue against him for a contempt of court, in not making the money under a writ of fieri facias, agreeably to the exigency thereof.
    Upon the return .of the rule, the sheriff shewed for cause, that he had levied upon a horse, the only property he could find of the defendant; which horse had been taken out of his bands by a writ of replevin, issued at the suit of a third person, who claimed the horse as his property.
    The Judge ruled the cause shewn to be sufficient, because tbe sheriff was bound to obey the writ.
    From this decision the plaintiff appealed, and moved the Constitutional Court to reverse .the same, and make the rule against the sheriff absolute, on the following grounds;
    
      íst. That the said decision of the court bad neither law nor authority to sanction it.
    dnd. That the doctrine supported by the said decision, is unreasonable, and'would, if established, have a serious effect in delaying the justice of the country.
    Taylor, for the motion.
    *-, contra.
   Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court will not unnecessarily anticipate the question, whether the writ of replevin lay at the suit of a third party, to regain possession of a horse taken by the sheriff as the property of another. That question will arise necessarily in the case of replevin. For the case before us, it is enough to say, that the presiding judge having deemed it competent to issue the writ in such case, does, at least, shew, that the sheriff might well have so thought; the officer is therefore shielded from the charge of contempt of the process of this court. The writ and the execution, both issued under the seal of this court, which to obey was at least matter of great consideration. If the officer erred, there is still no ground for attachment where the point is not clear.

The motion is therefore unanimously dismissed.

Justices Rott, Johnson and Colcock, concurred.  