Judges of the Superior Courts, presiding in the Courts below, during the period embraced in this volume.

Eastern Circuit,

Middle Circuit,

Northern Circuit,

Western Circuit,
Ocmulgee Circuit,

Southern Circuit,

Flint Circuit,

Coweta Circuit,

Cherokee Circuit,

46

Hon. WILLIAM B. FLEMING, Savannah, Ga.
Hon. WILLIAM W. HOLT, Augusta,
Hon. NATHAN C. SAYRE, Sparta,
Hon. CHARLES DOUGHERTY, Athens.
Hon. JAMES A. MERIWETHER, Eatonton, "
Hon. JAMES J. SCARBOROUGH, Marion,
Hon. JOHN J. FLOYD, Covington,
Hon. EDWARD Y. HILL,† La Grange,

Chattahoochee Circuit, Hon. ROBT. B. ALEXANDER, Columbus,
Hon. AUGUSTUS R. WRIGHT, Cassville,

Southwestern Circuit, Hon. LOTT WARREN, Albany.

* Elected to fill the vacancy of Judge GAMBLE, Nov., 1847.

† Re-elected; term of office four years.

Re-elected; term of office four years, to commence Nov. 1848.

66

66

No. 1.-JOHN D. MATTHIS, plaintiff in error, vs. JAMES POLLARD, defendant in error.

[1.] The appointment of a deputy sheriff may be made by parol; and the admissions of the principal, his recognitions of the acts of his deputy, or holding him out to the world in any other way as such, would be sufficient evidence of his appointment. [2.] The sheriff is liable for money collected by his deputy, no matter how the execution upon which it is paid comes into his hands.

[3.] Money paid upon an execution in the hands of the sheriff or his deputy, discharges the defendant.

Rule against Sheriff. Tried before Judge ALEXANDER, in Talbot Superior Court, March Term, 1847.

At the March adjourned term of the Superior Court of Talbot County, 1847, James Pollard, the defendant in error, obtained a rule Nisi against the plaintiff in error, reciting that James R. Giddens, the former deputy of said plaintiff, on the 8th of March, 1846, collected the sum of $40, on a writ of Fieri Facias, sued out from the Superior Court aforesaid, at the instance of said defendant, against Stephen J. Phillips and Thomas H. Dozier security, and requiring said plaintiff to show cause why he should not pay to James Pollard, or his attorney, the said sum of $40. To which rule John D. Matthis answered, that the writ of fi. fa. was delivered to Thomas U. Robinson, a former sheriff, on the 5th of May, 1843, as appears from the execution docket, and admits it may have been delivered by Robinson to James R. Giddens, his successor, and he, the said Giddens, might have received, on the

Matthis vs. Pollard.

18th March, 1846, as deputy sheriff, $40 on said fi. fa., as appears from his receipt thereon of that date; and further admits, that Giddens was at that time his deputy. He also states, that Giddens was his predecessor, as sheriff of Talbot County, and that he (Giddens) never turned over to him, as his successor, the said fi. fa. by indenture, schedule, or otherwise, and it never came into his hands as sheriff, nor was it ever delivered to him by any person, or in any manner, since he came into the office of sheriff. That said fi. fu. was never returned to the clerk's office after it had been delivered to Robinson on the 5th March, 1843.

After hearing the plaintiff's answer, Judge Alexander decided, that the possession of the fi. fa. by James R. Giddens, when he was deputy sheriff of the plaintiff in error, and a payment by the defendant in fi. fa. to him, was a satisfaction of the fi. fa., and fixed his, the said plaintiff's, liability as sheriff, to the plaintiff in fi. fa., and therefore granted a rule absolute against him. To which decision the said Matthis excepted.

L. B. SMITH, for plaintiff in error, cited Hotchkiss, 515; 2 Bacon Abr. 517; Hempsted vs. Weed, 20 John. R. 64; Larned vs. Allen, et al., 13 Mass. Rep. 295; 9 Petersdorff Abr. t. p. 62.

WORRILL, represented by HILL, for defendant.

By the Court-NISBET J. delivering the opinion.

An execution was placed in the hands of Robinson, sheriff of Talbot County, and by him turned over to Giddens, his successor. Giddens' term expiring, the present sheriff, Matthis, was elected, and appointed Giddens his deputy. The execution which Giddens received, as sheriff, was not formally turned over by him to Matthis, but retaining it, as Matthis' deputy, he collected the money due upon it. Matthis, the sheriff, was ruled for this money, and held liable. We are invited by the bill of exceptions and writ of error to review that decision. We think the decision was right.

[1] By statute in this State, the sheriff is authorized to appoint his deputies. Hotchkiss, 515. No mode of appointment is prescribed by law; and hence he may appoint by parol, or by a formal writing. The sheriff's admissions, or his recognition of the acts of the deputy, or his holding him out to the public as his