
    Jordan Williams vs. Lorenzo R. Stewart.
    When a court of competent jurisdiction issues a supersedeas as to an execution in the hands of the sheriff, the latter need look no farther; he must obey it; it is not for him to inquire into the propriety of the grant of the fiat.
    It seems that an administrator, who sues out a supersedeas to an execution against his intestate, is not compelled to give bond to obtain the process; his official bond reaching his obligation in that particular.
    In error from the circuit court of Yalabusha county; Hon. Francis M. Rogers, judge.
    Jordan Williams entered amotion against Lorenzo R. Stewart, as sheriff of the county, for having failed to make the money on a fieri facias, issued by the clerk of the circuit court of the county, at the suit of Williams against George A. Thompson, individually, George A. Thompson, administrator of Phebe Pitts, deceased, Isaac Thompson, Robert Brooks, and Abel Beatty, issued on the 23d of January, 1847, upon the affirmance of a judgment in the high court of errors and appeals, rendered in the circuit court of Yalabusha, in favor of Williams against Thompson and others, and which execution was levied by the sheriff on negroes as the property of Phebe Pitts, enough to satisfy the debt; but the sheriff voluntarily, and without authority, omitted to make the debt.
    Without any answer to the motion or issue, a jury was em-panelled who found for the defendant.
    On the trial the plaintiff read the record of his judgment, and proved that the fieri facias was received by the sheriff on the 26th of January, 1847, and levied on the 27th, on the slaves, and they were not sold. Whereupon the, defendant proved that Phebe Pitts had been dead more than a year; that George A. Thompson died on the 4th of November, 1846: and read a petition by Thomas Lane, administrator de bonis non of Pitts, for a supersedeas of this execution; the Gat therefor, by Judge Rogers, without requiring bond of Lane, and the writ of supersedeas issued superseding the exécution. The plaintiff proved that the supersedeas issued without bond, and upon the verdict of the jury, sued out this writ of error.
    
      Sheppard, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Acee, for defendant in error,
    Cited H. & H. 642, sec. 42; Davis v. Dixon, 1 How. 67; Duckworth v. Millsaps, 7 S. & M. 308; H. & H. 644, sec. 47.
   Mr. Justice ThacheR

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a motion against a sheriff for failing to make the money upon a certain fieri facias, issued out of the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Yalabusha county, upon a judgment affirmed by this court, and by virtue of the statute. H. & H. 642, sec. 42.

We learn from the record and briefs of counsel, (for the fieri facias is not incorporated in the record,) that the sheriff rested his defence upon the ground that he had been superseded in prosecuting the execution by process of supersedeas served upon him.

The record shows the fiat of the circuit judge, directing the supersedeas to issue, and beyond this the sheriff need not look. It is not for him to inquire into the propriety of the grant of the fiat but only as to the jurisdiction of the court to grant it. Walker v. McDowell, 4 S. & M. 118.

It is not necessary to add, that this supersedeas was sued out by an administrator de bonis non, and that no bond to warrant the process was required from him, because his official bond reached his obligation in this particular.

As to the pleadings in such cases, the motion constitutes all that is necessary.

Judgment affirmed. -  