80 FEDKBAL REPÛBTEB. �The right of the sheriff in that respect is governed by 2 Eev. St. 646, § 33, (5th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 92e,) which provided as foUows: "For serving an attachaient for the payment of money, or an execution for the collection of money, or a war- rant for the same purpose, issued by the comptroller, or by any county treasurer, for oollecting the sum of $250 or less, two cents and five mills per dollar, and for every dollar col- lected more than $250, one cent and two and a half mills." By an act of April 12, 1871, the sheriff's poundage was raised to three cents on the first $250, and two cents on ail above that sum, except in the counties of New York, West- chester, and Kings. An earlier statute, whioh is included in the Eevision of 1813, provided that the sheriff should receive for "serving an execution, for or under $250, two cents and four mills per dollar, and for every dollar more than $250, one cent and two mills ; the poundage on writs of Jien fadas, and ail other writs for levying moneys, to be taken only for the sum levied." This earlier statute received in several cases a judicial construction that, as applied to a ca. sa., or execution against the person, it entitled the sheriff to fuU poundage, on the ground that the service of such an execu- tion by arrest was, so long as the imprisonment continued, * satisfaction of the execution, and that the sheriff's liability,
- in case of escape, was for the whole amount of the execution.
The change of phraseology in the later statute is relied on as changing the law in this respect; but I do not think this is the resuit of the authorities, nor a proper inferenoe to be drawn from the statute itself. The practical construction that has been given to the statute is that it entitled the sher- iff to full poundage upon service of the execution against the person. 2 Eev. Laws, 19; adams v. Hopkins, 5 John. 252; Scott V. Shaic, 13 John. 378; Campbell v. Cothran, 56 N. Y. 279; Cooper v. Bigelow, 1 Cow. 56; Ghapman v. Hatt, 11 Wend. 41 ; Koenig v. Steckel, 58 N. Y. 475. The new pro- vision contained in the Code, which took effect September 1, 1880, does not affect this case. �It is, however, objected that in this case, as the arrest was in the county of New York, the rate of poundage to be allowed ����
