Stegman v. Hollingsworth

The appellant relies chiefly upon three points, viz.: (1) That the money, being received by Hodgkinson after the term of Stegman had expired, was taken by him in his private capacity, and not as undersheriff; (2) that the bond sued upon did not cover money received after the sheriff’s official term was ended; (3) that the action will not lie until the sheriff has in fact paid over the money to those entitled to receive it. The action has been before the general term on various occasions. At the December term, 1891, it was held that Hodgkinson received the money in his official capacity, as…