Case Name: Richard Davis, Sheriff, plaintiff in error, vs. John M. Green, et al., defendants in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1857-06
Citations: 23 Ga. 185
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard Davis, Sheriff, plaintiff in error, vs. John M. Green, et al., defendants in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
Richard Davis, Sheriff, plaintiff in error, vs. John M. Green, et al., defendants in error.
“The Sheriff may be ruled e;,!ier in the Superior or Inferior Court, for money collected by him on Justices Court Ji. fas.¡ the jurisdiction of these Courts-being concurrent in this respect.
Certiorari and Rule, in Randolph Superior Court. Decision by J; dge Kiddoo, at May Term, 1857.
John M. Green took out a rule against Richard Davis, 'Sheriff of Randolph county, issuing from and returnable to ?the Inferior Court of said county to show cause why he had ,not made and paid over the money due on certain fi.fas. ¡■issuing from a Justice’s Court, which had been levied upon land, and. under the statute in such cases turned over to said ■Sheriff.
Davis, the Sheriff, pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Inferior Court ip the case. The plea was overruled and judgment final on said rule was awarded against the Sheriff for the amount of principal, interest and costs due on said fi.fa. Davis excepted and sued out a writ of certiorari, leaving said judgment for review and reversal before the Superior Court.
Upon the hearing in the Superior Court, the presiding Judge dismissed lh<s certiorari, and affirmed the judgment of the Inferior Court, and counsel for defendant excepted.
F. M. Brindley, by Barry, for plaintiff in error.
A. Hood, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court. —
Lumpkin, J.
delivering the opinion.
Is the Sheriff liable to a rule in the Inferior Court, for money collected out of land on Justice's Court executions?
Properly, the Sheriff should make his return to the Court from which the process emanated. It seems to be conceded, Jiowever, that he is not amenable to the Justice's Court.
If, then, the Sheriff be liable in either of the other Courts, we see no reason why in one more than the other. They have concurrent jurisdiction in such cases. There is no statute regulating this subject. There is nothing in the fact that the money in this case was raised out of land ; and so far as we know, the practice has been uniform and universal throughout the State, to rule the Sheriff in the first Court that sat in the county, after the money came into his hands. It is a good and convenient practice, and we are unwilling to change it. We affirm, therefore, the judgment of the Court below.
Judgment affirmed.