
    Mize, sheriff, vs. Blalock.
    1. Where one who has been appointed solicitor pro tem. of the county court, performs the work, and obtains an order of court allowing him fees, he may rule the sheriff for money collected in fines and forfeitures in the county court.
    2. Where a rule absolute was obtained at one term of court against the sheriff, and at the next term án attachment nisi was issued against him, he could not, in answer thereto, put in the same grounds which were decided against Mm before the rule was made absolute. No exception having been taken or certiorari sought to the judgment on those issues, the case as to them was res adjudicata.
    
    September 25, 1883.
    [L. J. Blalock, who had acted as solicitor pro tern, of the county court of Sumter county, and had orders on funds arising from fines, etc., allowed for his costs, ruled the sheriff to require the latter to pay over a fund in his hands arising from such sources. The sheriff demurred to the rule; but the demurrer was overruled. He answered that he had orders sufficient to absorb the fund, and though junior to.those of Blalock, he claimed the right to hold the money; that theré was enough in the county treasury to pay off all claims. The rule was made absolute. At the next term of court, an attachment nisi, was issued against the sheriff. He demurred, and answered substantially as he had done to the rule. The court ordered the money to be paid over in teu days, or that the sheriff be attached. He sued out a writ of certiorari; the judge of the superior court sustained the ruling of the court below, and the sheriff excepted.]
   Judgment affirmed.  