
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1793.
    Margaret Fisher against Thomas Beatty.
    THIS was an action of replevin of goods taken by the defendant as sheriff, to satisfy his poundage and other fees due on a writ of fieri facias and a venditioni exponas, which last writ was countermanded before execution. The cause was removed from the county court of Frederick, by a writ of pone. See the defendant’s avowry, and the general demurrer thereto, in 2 Harris’s Entries, 493 — 496.
    Three points were made. 1st. Whether the sheriff could execute for his poundage fees, the process not being completed.
    2d. Whether, on an execution, the defendant is liable to the sheriff for his fees.
    3d. If the defendant is liable, does that liability extend to the executrix.
    
      Mason, for the plaintiff.
    The sheriff cannot demand his poundage fees of the defendant on an execution. He should demand them of the plaintiff. 2 Term Rep. 132. 157. 164. 1 Doug. 139. 141. The statute of 29 Eliz. allows the sheriff poundage in Great Britain. There is no consideration between the sheriff and the defendant, so as to support an action.
    The act of 1779, c. 29. s. 5. gives poundage fees. This act is limited by the act of 1787, c. 36.
    The sheriff can have no poundage fees on a fi. fa. till actually made. Loft’s Rep. 433.
    Fees are given in consideration of the risk run by the sheriff.
    
      
      Martin (Attorney-General) and B. Johnson, were for the defendant.
    If the sheriff takes goods in execution, it is a discharge of the plaintiff. 2 Bac. Abr. 355. Salk. 323.
    The sheriff has no power to distress when out of office. By the acts of 1763, c. 18. s. 34. and 1779, c. 29. the power given to the sheriff to distrain is for tobacco fees only.
    A statute giving a" new remedy or jurisdiction should be construed strictly. The act of 1799, c. 29. does not enumerate executors, and does not, of course, extend to them.
   The general court determined the demurrer to be good, and gave judgment against the avowant. In this case the 1st and 3d points only being material, the court were decidedly of opinion in the negative. As to the third point, though no judicial opinion was given, yet the court seemed to think that if the question should be brought before them, they would not hesitate to say that the defendant is not liable for the poundage fees.  