
    
      Charles H. Allen v. J. Ramey, late Sheriff, and his sureties.
    
    The sureties of a sheriff are not liable for the printer’s fees, which the sheriff collected, or failed to collect, and refused or neglected to- pay over to the printer.
    
      Before Wardlaw, J. at Abbeville, March Term, 1849.
    Suggestion of further breach, after judgment, for the penalty of a sheriff’s official bond. Breach suggested that the sheriff had not paid over to the printer, the printer’s bill, which he had collected, in various cases of execution, where' in there had been advertisement.
    (See Acts of 1839 — 58 sect, of sheriff’s Act, 11-37 Stat., and sheriff’s clause of 1st sect, of Act to regulate fees — 11-11 Stat.)
    The circuit Judge held that the amount of the printer's bill depended upon contract between him and the sheriff, was not regulated by law, and therefore did not fall within the denomination of/ees^-that, (if not barred by some special agreement,) the printer might recover from the sheriff for his services, whether the sheriff collected from the debtor or not; and therefore the sheriff’s collection imposed no liability on his sureties. That the printer’s bill was like a tavern bill made in transporting a prisoner, or other expense incurred by the sheriff, which he might have taxed as a necessary outlay, but which the tavern keeper, or other person with whom the sheriff has contracted, cannot demand otherwise than through the sheriff.
    The relator Charles H. Allen, (printer,) appealed, and moved the Court of Appeals to reverse the decision of his Honor, quashing the suggestion—
    1st. Because his Honor erred in holding and deciding that the sureties of Johnson Ramey, late sheriff of Abbeville district, were not liable for the printer’s fees, which said sheriff collected, or by his default failed to collect, and refused or neglected to pay over to said printer.
    2d. Because the opinion and decision of his .Honor was erroneous, and contrary to law.
    
      B. Y. Martin, for the motion.
    
      T. Thompson, contra.
   Curia, per Wardlaw, J.

This Court agrees that the proper view was taken on the circuit, of the relator’s demand.

■ The sheriff is required to publish advertisements of property to be sold under execution in a Gazette of his district— so he is required to publish advertisements of runaway slaves, to procure food for prisoners, to pay the expenses of burying a convict executed, to pay the expenses of transporting prisoners, and to make other expenditures in discharging his duties. All these are equally matters of private contract, for which the sheriff obtains re-imbursement either in the fees allowed to him, (where his contract has been reasonable,) by express words, sometimes even in the fee bills, in addition to those fees. But the use of terms which show that the one dollar allowed to the sheriff for advertising sale made under an execution is exclusive of the printer’s bill, no more gives to the printer a remedy against the officer distinguished from the man, than the use of similar words as to necessary ex penses gives such remedy to the keeper of a livery stable, a tavern keeper, a guardaran, or any body else that by contract with the sheriff has borne part of those expenses.

The motion is dismissed.

The whole Court concurred.

Motion refused.  