
    Chiles vs. Holloway.
    The Sheriff is not liable for money received by his Deputy, oh a' case in which execution has not yet been lodged in his office.
    This case had been referred to the clerk, on an order for judgment, but judgment had not been entered, nor any fi. fa. issued, when the defendant paid to one Tutt, the deputy of Belcher the sheriff, who gave a receipt in the case as deputy sheriff, the sum of $170 dollars, and this was a rule upon the sheriff to shew cause why he did not give credit on the execution for- the amount which it ap* peared Tutt had not paid over. The sheriff objected'to the rule on' the ground, that he was not responsible for a payment made to his deputy, until execution was lodged in his office for collection. That until execution was issued and lodged with him, he had no authority for receiving payment, and of course his deputy had no authority.
   Waties, J.

who heard the case dismissed the rule.— He thought the sheriff had no authority to receive the-money but what he derived from the execution, and that a payment made to the deputy before the sheriff himself' was authorised to receive it,, could not-render the sheriff Hable. The party paying must look to the deputy.

The Court of Appeals confirmed his honor’s judgment.

Rule dismissedl.  