JONES v. JONES. 461

considered as an officer of the Court of Appeals. But can the
Chancellor order money, which has been legally placed in the
hands of an officer of the Court of Appeals, subject to their con-
trol, to be brought into this court, to be disposed of here as may
be deemed right, among the parties to this suit ? This court might
order an administrator, if there was such a person here as a party
to this suit, to move the Court of Appeals to direct their officer,
this sheriff, to pay this surplus to him the administrator. But the
Chancellor can give no such direction to this sheriff; because in
undertaking to control an officer of the Court of Appeals as to any
disposition of money placed in his hands by their authority, the
Chancellor would thus bring this court into direct conflict with the
jurisdiction of that tribunal, which certainly ought not to be done
in any manner or under any circumstances whatever. Money in
the hands of a sheriff, or of a third person, cannot be taken under
a fieri facias; and the correctness of this position generally is
recognised by the attachment act,( j) which gives what is called a
judicial attachment as against third persons. But even that pro-
cess cannot be levied upon money which had been made, and
brought into the hands of a sheriff by virtue of a writ of fieri
facias; because no third person or other court can be allowed to
interfere with the execution of his duty according to the command
of the process of that court under whose authority he was acting.(k)
Hence it is clear, that this sheriff Brown has been improperly made
a party to this suit.

Whereupon it is ordered, that this case stand over, with leave to
amend and to make proper parties.

Afterwards on the 6th of June 1828, the plaintiffs filed in this
case the following judgment or direction of the Court of Appeals.

" Court of Appeals for the Eastern Shore of Maryland, June
term 1828.—Ordered by the court, that Edward Brown, late sheriff
of Kent county, pay to such trustee as the Chancellor of Maryland
shall appoint, the sum of fourteen hundred and fifty-one dollars
and thirty-eight cents, which sum of money the said Edward
Brown as sheriff aforesaid, in his return upon a writ of fieri facias
issued from this court $t the suit of Thomas Dawson against Jesse

(j) 1715, ch. 40, s. 7; Parke's His. Co. Chan. 274.—(k) Turner v. Fendall .l Cran.
133; Armistead v. Philpot, Doug. 231; Willows v. Ball, 2 New Rep. 376; Fieldhouse
v. Croft, 4 East, 510; Knight v. Criddle, 9 East, 48; Stratford v. Twynam, Jac. Rep.
418 1831,ch. 321.