The opinion of the court Avas delivered,
This case was altogether too summarily dealt with by the instruction that the plaintiffs were entitled to the verdict. The laAV of the case is not so plainly against the defendant. It is not clear that the money claimed was lost by his fault. There was much irregularity in the proceedings in the and all the as Ayell the be
The sheriff’s return of sale renders him liable to a call to pay the hand-money into court at once, or to pay the several parties so soon as their shares were ascertained, and also to a call to bring the judgment-notes into court that the parties might have them properly disposed of. But he was not bound to seek the parties in order to make payment to them, or to assign to them their several shares of the notes. No assignment was needed, for, in law, the notes were theirs, and the decree of distribution fixed their several shares in them, and they ought to have seen to their collection. There was the question of fact, whether the money was lost by the negligence of the sheriff; that ought to have been left to the jury. If there are other questions needing instructions from us, we cannot give them for want of the declaration showing how the claim is presented, which has not been put upon our paper-books.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial awarded;