Show FEE QUESTION DECIDED ruling of supreme court as to sheriffs commissions AFFECT SALES ON EXECUTION where the judgment creditor buys the property and no money Is paid the sheriff ho he cannot collect a percentage mandate in the leake case received by supreme court plaintiff now kow entitled to about water cases decided by judge H at billmore rill more the supreme court of the state handed down an opinion yesterday relating to the fe few of sheriffs in connection with the sale by them ot of property under execution the rule laid down by the court Is as ai follows under a statute fixing tho the sheriffs commission tor for receiving and paying over money on execution or other oilier process when property propel prop eity ty has hafl been sold bold where the plaintiff at it a sale on execution bid in tho the property and dire directed eted the amount of oc its bid to be credited on the execution and no money in fact passed the sheriff la is not entitled to commission tho the case in which the opinion was delivered was that of 0 D 11 II peery pecry vs heber wright sheriff ot of weber county it appears from the record that tile the sheriff sold gold certain property at e execution tale late and the same name was bid in by mr peery who iho was the judgment creditor tho the amount ot of the bid was not paid to tile sheriff in money the plain tiff tl directing the sheriff to credit tho the amount on the judgment which left a deficiency peery pecry paid all costs except 37 57 which the sheriff claimed its as commission and upon payment of 0 the commission being refused the sheriff declined to issue a certificate of sale mandamus proceedings were instituted to compel him to issue the and a writ was issued by the lower court to that effect an appeal was then taken to the Su supreme court with the result ns as above stated in passing upon ullon the case the court states elates that the statute provides tor for the dayment ot of commissions on oil execution where property has been sold kold and money received and paid over by the but there Is tto no pro provision islon tor for commission when n hen n no 0 money changes hands P and nd such a provision cannot be implied because the rule of strict construction st must control in the interpretation ot of a statute of 0 this kind obviously tho the legislature intended the commissions provided for in III the statute as compensation to tile the officer for the risk and responsibility of handling the money and not for ills services in crying tho the salt sale for such services his other fees or compensation must suffice that tile the sheriff might be called upon to serve executions make returns of sale and issue cei without receiving and paying over any money seems seem to have live been contemplated by the Legisla such cases intentionally excluded from the provisions of 0 tho the statute the court below included in its judgment an attorneys ice fee in favor of the plaintiff this was not proper under the circumstances disclosed by the record and the hie judgment must be and hereby Is modified so as to exclude and disallow the same subject to this the judgment Is in affirmed the opinion was written by justice bartell bartch with chief justice zane and justice liner concurring |