
    Conant vs. Bicknell.
    September term, 1790.
    not attachable an officer. Money levied on an execution
    Assumpsit for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff.
    Plea, non-assumpsit.
    It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff, a sheriff’s deputy, had an execution against Bicknell, in favor of one Woolston, a person residing abroad. The defendant counted out the money to satisfy the execution, on the table, being £3 18s. 8d., and shoved it across the table to Conant, who, thereupon, endorsed the execution satisfied. Upon which Bicknell immediately laid his hands on the money and turned it out as the - property of Woolston, on an attachment at the suit of Bicknell against Woolston, and it was by another officer who was ready for the purpose, attached as the pro perty of Woolston.
   It was held

by the Court,

that money, collected- by an officer on execution, cannot be attached out of his hands. On the receipt, the officer becomes a debtor to the plaintiff, not for the identical pieces of moneyybut for the sum.

Verdict for the plaintiff.  