
    
      Louisa A. Bowie et al. v. J Ramey, late sheriff, and his sureties.
    
    Held, that whenever a bond taken tinder an order for sale in partition, is in the hands of a sheriff, and no direction to the contrary has been given, he may collect, and (if the necessery information has been given to him,) may distribute, being always at liberty to apply to the Court for instructions; that money properly collected by him on any such bond, “has come to his hands as sheriffthat even a collection contrary to orders would be a violation of duty which would create a liability for the injnvy thereby done, the least measure of which would be the sum received; and that in a suggestion like this, it is sufficient to assign for breach either the sheriff’s neglect to pay over the money he received, or his neglect to take and turn over bonds as required by law.
    
      Before Wardlaw, J. at Abbeville, March, 1849.
    This case is in the main like that of Black v. Ramey et al. There were proceedings in partition at law, — order for sale of land, — sale—bond taken, — bond turned over to successor, diminished by credits for money which the Sheriff had received, — and demand after expiration of J. R’s. official term.
    
      Verdict for the relators, balance in the hands of J. R., with interest-from the time of demand.
    The defendants, sureties of J. Ramey, appealed and moved the Court of Appeals to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial.
    1. Because it is respectfully submitted that his Honor the presiding Judge erred, in holding and charging that the sureties of the Sheriff were liable for the money received by Johnson Ramey on the bond given for,the purchase money of the land sold for partition, under proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas.'
    2. Because his Honor erred in holding and charging that the receipt of the money on the bond aforesaid, by Johnson Ramey, although irregular and unwarranted by law or the order of the Court, was such an act of official misconduct as to charge and make liable his sureties.
    3. Because his Honor erred in holding and charging that the relators had been injured and damnified to the amount of the credits and receipts made and entered upon said bonds by J. Ramey, while Sheriff, and for which his sureties were liable; whereas it is respectfully submitted that no injury had been sustained by payments illegally and unwarrantably made, and that the relators had full and ample remedy, both against the purchasers of the land and the land itself.
    
    4. Because the charge of his Honor was in other respects erroneous, and the verdict contrary to law.
    
      Thomson & Fair, for the motion.
    
      Wilson, contra.
   Curia, per Waeduw, J.

For the reasons of the decision in this case, I refer to the opinion just pronounced in the case of Eliz. Black et al. against the same defendants.

In this case there was no direction for payment given in the order of sale, and no receipt of money before it was due.

This Court is, however, of opinion that whenever a bond taken under an order for sale in partition is in the hands of a sheriff,' and no directions to the contrary has been given, he may collect, and (if the necessary information has been given to him,) may distribute, being always at liberty to apply to the Court for instructions; that money properly collected by him on any such bond “ has come to his hands as sheriffand even a collection contrary to orders would be a violation of duty which would create a liability for the injury thereby done, the least measure of which would be the sum received; and that in a suggestion like this it is sufficient to assign for breach either the sheriff’s neglect to pay over the money he received, or his neglect to take and turn over bonds as required by law.

The whole Court concurred.

Motion refused.  