Daily globe., 1879-06-26
THOMPSON's TUMBLE.

IL Will Dc remeIuDeIou tudt WuoA VIC AOAo-
closure sales of mortgages on the st. Paul q
Pacific railroad took place, under decree of
the Ramsey county district court, two hap
pened here under the management of Sher-
if King, and two at Minneapolis under
Sheriff Thompson. At one of the two sales,
occurring on May 5th, besides the real prop
erty disposed of, 81, 100000 worth of bonds,
known as the Yelverton bonds, were
disposed of for 100000. On this sale
Sheriff Thompson claimed a fee of $4,000,
or at the rate of 2 per cent, the commission
allowed ordinarily for the sale of personal
property. The matter was brought into
court at the time the sale was reported for
confirmation, was argued and submitted.
in the following words:
Horace Thompson and John s. Kennedy,
trustees vs. the First Division of the Saint
Paul & Pacific railroad company ct al.
The defendants to the above named, issued
bonds to the amount of $600,000, and to Sc
cure the payment thereof, made its MORTGAGE
to plaintiffs as trustees upon its railroad and
appurtenances and certain lands, and it. also
transferred to plaintiffs other bonds to the
amount of 81 900, previously made by it
but not negotiated, secured by private mort
gage upon the same property, to John p.
Yelverton and Samuel j. Tilden as trustees,
in said mortgage to plaintiff. were for the pay
ment of said first-named bonds. Default hav-
ing been made in the payment of the bonds
first above-named, this action was brought to
foreclose the mortgage securing the same, and
the decree of this court was entered, determin-
ing the amount due upon the bonds, directing
a sale of the said mortgaged property, includ-
ing said bonds for $780, 600, by the sheriff of
Hennepin county in the usual way, and direct.
ing that the proceeds be brought into court to
be applied under it's direction, said bonds to be
first sold in parcel. Pursuant to this de-
Gree the said property was sold by the sheriff,
the bonds for the sum OF $9OO, ,OO0 and the other
property for the sum of $45O, 600. The sheriff
thereupon made his report of sale, from which
it appeared among other things that he claimed
for his services in making the sale of the bonds,
fees to the amount of $4,000, being 2 per cent.
upon the purchase price. The sale was con-
sheriff's fees was reserved and tho sheriff di-
rected to pay the said sum of $4,000 in court
to await further order in the premises.
The sheriff now makes application for said
amount as his compensation, under the statute,
for his services in selling said bonds. The
other services rendered by him are paid for,
and the only question raised is what compen-
sation is sheriff entitled to for selling mort
gagged personal property upon decree of fore
closure. The fees of sheriffs and other officers
are matters entirely of statutory regulation.
Referring to the legislation in this State upon
the subject we find that in the year 1876 by
special law (M. 2G7 special laws 1870 the COM
pensation of the sheriff of Hennepin county
was limited to contain specific sums named for
certain specific services named, not including
the service performed by the sheriff in this bill
As the matter stood under that enactment the
sheriff was obliged to perform work and was
not entitled to compensation therefor. In 1879
with the apparent intention Of remedying this
hardship, an act was passed (approved March
II, 1879 which provides (sec. g.: "The sheriff
Of said county of Henepin shall receive the
foes now provided for by law = = and where
no provision has been made by special law for
to perform he may receive therefor such COM
pensation as is allowed therefor by general Law"
There is no special law relating to the matter
other than those above mentioned
The general law prescribing the fees of sheriffs
is found in section 10, chapter TO- of the gen.
eral statutes. The service rendered by the
sheriff IN this case is not there specially named,
but there is general clause at the end of the
section which covers this and all other cases
that clause reads as follows: -.
For any services not herein enumerated,
which sheriff may be required to perform, he
shall receive the fees herein allowed for similar
services"
To determine then. what fees are specifically
allowed in section 10 for services similar tc
those rendered in this case is to determine the
point in dispute.
1t is provided in this section, among other
things, that sheriff shall receive for ''collec-
tions on executions, when the same IL collected
or settled after levy, at the rate Of per centum
upon tho first Two hundred and fifty dollars
and 2 per centum upon the excess of said
sum-" ,....- -.. ---
1t is also provided, as amended by chapter 8
laws of 1878, that he shall receive for 'selling
land on decree by foreclosure, and executing
deed, and for all services required in making
such sale, the sum of ($3) three dollars" Anc
these two are the only provisions which it is
claimed have any applicability to this case.
The sheriff claims that the service per
formed by him is like collection on execution
the plaintiff claims it is more like the sale OF
land on decree of foreclosure.
1t is not claimed and cannot be, in view o1
the statutory definition of an execution (titl
~, chapter 66, of general statutes), that ther,
was any execution in this case, but counsel fo
the sheriff contends that the services rendered
had for their purpose the collection of tn,
debt by the process of the court, and so is lik,
a collection on execution.
the sheriff has the same purpose and the SAM
result in the one as in the other, Just a
the service of the summons and the levy of tn
execution have the same ultimate object ant
bring about the same result; but the work &C
CURED are quite different. With an execution
the sheriff must make diligent search, he mus
make levy. an inventory, he must collect tn
judgment, # in the exercise Of diligence it ca,
In the other case he is simpl
required to sell certain designated
property in manner designated and to bring
the money received by him therefor int
court; his action is directed by the court i
snbjeet to its approval and he incurs little re
sponsibility.
In collecting an execution it may be neces
sary to make sale of property; but the sal
will be only one step, and that not the mos
important of many necessary to be taken. Be
sides the sheriff very frequently collects wilr
out sale, in which case it would be difficult t
find any similarity in the work he performs
his work in selling property under decree Z
foreclosure. On the other hand, there is n
difference between selling the estate under dt
cree of foreclosure and selling personal proI
erty under decree of foreclosure. The wor
done by the sheriff and the liability INQUIRE
s possible diersnoe the is in ts the
session of the property. This propositio
is certainly true as applied to the case und
consideration. The mortgage embraced Il
two classes of property, real and personal, OF
decree directs them both to be sold and in tt
SAME manner; the sheriff includes both in on
notice, he makes sale of both at the same tin
and place and in the same manner; he max,
but one report; there is but one hearing; an
both sales are confirmed by one order. tt
proceedings were precisely the same in all +
spects as to both classes of property, save on
that the personal property was in the custoc
of the sheriff at the time Of the sale and mt
the sale was confirmed.
For his services in selling the real estate tt
sheriff is allowed fee of So; it would see
strange if for like services in selling Psrson
property he was allowed fee of $500
What the law does allow him is the compens
ton prescribed for the similar service of Sc
ing the real estate, the sum of S3.