Case Name: The State vs. The Sheriff of Charleston District
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1821-05
Citations: 1 McCord 419
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State vs. The Sheriff of Charleston District.
Judges: Justices Colcock, Johnson, and Natt, concurred,,
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 419–421

Head Matter:
The State vs. The Sheriff of Charleston District.
Upon a rule against the sheriff to shew cause why certain money collected for fines inflicted in the court of sessions should not be paid over, the Court JIM that the sheriff was not entitled to retain 5 per cent. for his commissions upon the amount collected; and that the clause of the county court act under which he made such claim was repealed by the Judiciary act of 1798, and that the act of 1791, regulating the fee bill, repealed all former acts allowing costs, and allowed none in this case.
*JjrIIS was a rule to shew cause why certain money collet-tea for fines inflicted in the court oi sessions should not be paid over ; the sheriff having detained five per cent, for his commissions upon the amount collected. This rule having- been made absolute, the motion was to set aside the order of the presiding-judge, upon the ground: That the sheriff ./as entitled to five per cent, commissions upon such collections of money, by virtue of the county court act of March, 1785, (See Public Laws, 376, 377,) which enacts, “ and where any taxes, &c. — shall remain uncollected upon the'death or removal of any sheriff, his successor shall have the power to collect, &c. — the same as the sheriff into whose hands they were originally put, See, — and such succeeding sheriff shall forthwith take possession of all hooka and papers belonging to the office of such deceased or removed sheriff, &c. — and every sheriff' shall have and retain for all public debts and demands or officers fees by him codec-lected an allowance of f 5 per cent, for his commissions therein.”

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Richardson,
delivered the opinion of the court.
It must always be borne in mind, when costs are claimed by any officer, as well as by an attorney of this court, that unless such costs are expressly given by statute, none can be allowed. Admitting that the clause quoted, might literally embrace tins case, which is questionable, it is a clause of the county court act and was evidently intended to regulate the commissions of the former county court sheriffs in certain cases. That clause too, together with most of the provisions of the county court act, was repealed by the Judiciary act of 1798. The act also of 1791, regulating the fee bill expressly repeals all former acts allowing costs to the officers of this court in these words ; i. e. " that all former acts, &c. — for regulating, &c. — salaries and fees throughout this state, or in the districts or counties thereof, &c.~-shalf be and the same are hereby repealed." This repealing clause appears general enough to put an end to all former acts, customs and usages upon the subject of costs, &c. In any view, as no act is found which gives expressly a right to the supposed costs, the common law rule which allows no costs, must be applied.
Deliesseline, for the motion.
-, contra.
The motion is therefore refused unanimously.
Justices Colcock, Johnson, and Natt, concurred,,