Case Name: A. S. Eaton v. P. H. McElhone, as Sheriff
Court: Kansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1897-07-20
Citations: 6 Kan. App. 225
Docket Number: No. 180
Parties: A. S. Eaton v. P. H. McElhone, as Sheriff.
Judges: McElroy, J., concurring.
Reporter: Reports of cases decided in the Courts of Appeals of the state of Kansas
Volume: 6
Pages: 225–229

Head Matter:
A. S. Eaton v. P. H. McElhone, as Sheriff.
No. 180.
Execution — money in sheriff’s hands being proceeds of, cannot be applied on other executions. Money in the hands of a sheriff, collected by him upon execution before the same is returnable or returned, is not subject to be taken by such sheriff on other writs, or applied by him in satisfaction of other writs against the plaintiff in the execution, and which such sheriff may hold against him.
Error from Smith District Court. Hon. Cyrus Heren, Judge.
Opinion filed July 20, 1897.
Reversed..
Eaton, the plaintiff in error, recovered judgment in the Smith County District Court. Execution was issued to the defendant McElhone, as Sheriff of Smith County, on this judgment. The Sheriff collected the judgment. Without the consent of Eaton, he applied $173.82 of the money to the payment of a tax warrant held by him as Sheriff, and returned the remainder of the money, and his receipt as Sheriff for the taxes, purporting to be a receipt to Eaton, into court. Demand upon him made by Eaton’s attorneys for the $173.82 was refused. A motion was then made in the District Court to amerce the Sheriff in the sum of $173.82 so collected and withheld. Amercement was denied for the reason that the Sheriff had applied the money to the payment of the tax warrant. The plaintiff in error excepted, made a motion for a new trial which was overruled, and now brings the case here.
B. H. Tracy, for plaintiff in error.
L. C. Uhl and Webb McNall, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mahan, P. J.
The only question involved in this case is the right of the Sheriff to appropriate money which he had collected upon exection, during the life of the execution and before its return, to the satisfaction of another writ then in his hands for execution. The money was in the custody of the law and could not be seized upon execution. The Sheriff had no specific money or other property of the plaintiff Eaton upon which he could levy. Even if such a tax warrant is within the provisions of section 486 of the Code, which is doubtful, he was not indebted to Eaton so that he might under the provisions of that section pay it out of the fund. But this he does not claim to do. Pie claimed, as shown by the record, to have levied upon the money by virtue of the tax warrant.
It is contended by the defendant in error that the plaintiff in error waived his right to proceed against the Sheriff in this summary manner, by accepting the $154.42 which the Sheriff did pay into court. This claim is not tenable. Pie had a right to take from the court whatever was returned, and the Sheriff could be amerced for withholding the remainder. See § 472 and 474 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 474 reads: "When the cause of amercement is for refusing to pay over money collected as aforesaid, the said sheriff or other officer shall not be amerced in a greater sum than the amount withheld, with ten per cent, thereon." The court erred in denying the motion for amercement. Scott et al. v. Smith, 2 Kan. 438; Turner v. Fendell, 1 Cranch, 45; Dawson v. Holcomb, 1 Ohio, 275; Clymer v. Willis, 3 Cal. 363; Freeman on Executions, §130.
The case of Turner v. Fendell, supra, seems to be the first decision rendered in this country upon the question. It is approved by our Supreme Court in Scott et al. v. Smith, supra. It is true that there are courts that have held to the contrary, but as a matter of public policy, if for no other reason, a sheriff or other officer collecting money on a writ issued by a court ought not to be permitted to dispose of the money except as he is directed by the writ, or by turning the money into court, so that the court itself may make such directions concerning the fund as accord with justice and the rights of the parties.
Judgment is reversed, with direction to' proceed in accordance herewith.
McElroy, J., concurring.