Case Name: HENNIS v. STREEPER
Court: Philadelphia District Court
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1836-06-25
Citations: 1 Miles 269
Docket Number: 
Parties: HENNIS v. STREEPER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases determined in the district court for the city and county of Philadelphia
Volume: 1
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
HENNIS v. STREEPER.
June 25, 1836.
Rule on the sheriff to pay money into court.
Where on a fieri facias the sheriff sells personal property, and the landlord oí the house in which are the goods levied on,"makes a, claim for rent under the act of 21st of March 1772, the proceeds of which fieri facias are insufficient to pay the sheriff’s costs and the rent, the sheriff has the right nevertheless to his costs, and the landlord is not entitled to a priority of payment of his rent out of the proceeds as against such costs,
THE sheriff had sold the property of the defendant under a fien facias. The landlord liad made a claim for rent due him for the house, in which were the goods levied on and sold, under the act of 21st of March 1772, section 4. The proceeds of sale were insufficient to pay the sheriff^ costs, and the claim for rent, in full. The sheriff bad retained his costs and paid the balance of the proceeds to the landlord, who thereupon obtained a rale on the sheriff to pay the sum into court which he had retained for his costs. Upon this rule came up the question, whether, by the act referred to, the sheriff was not deprived of costs in favour of the landlord.
Kennedy, for the rule,
contended, that by the language of the act, viz. “ the said sheriff shall pay such rent if so much shall be in his hands, and apply the overplus thereof, if any, towards satisfying the debt and costs in such execution mentioned,” the sheriff’s costs must be postponed until the claim of rent is wholly satisfied.
H. J. Williams, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The fee bill of the 22d of February 1821, expressly gives (he sheriff certain costs for the levy, advertising and sale of goods oil a fieri fa< ins, And tl¡e piecn-uie v¡\u¡ to rent over costs, in the act of 21st of March 177 2, ¡.~ confined to the costs in the execution mentioned. The sheriff's eo-ls ate novel mentioned in the writ of execution, and there is no reason fot depriving the sheriff of a compensation for his services, when, if the landlord had pursued the remedy of distress, he would be liable to the costs of executing the distress.
Rule discharged.