MANNER OF IMPOUNDING J REMEDIES. 317 



give notice is not waived by the owner's appearing and de- 

 manding his property.*^ 



The pound-keeper is a public officer discharging a pubhc 

 duty and is not Hable for detaining a distress unless he has 

 done some act beyond his duty whereby the owner suffered 

 some particular damage not recoverable against the dis- 

 trainor, or when, by going out of , the line of his duty, he 

 makes himself a party to some illegal act of the distrainor.** 

 He must strictly comply with the statute regulating responsi- 

 bilities.*^ He is bound to receive everything offered to his 

 custody, whether legally impounded or not;*^ and is or- 

 dinarily not liable in replevin for doing so.*' "When Lord 

 Mansfield says that the pound-keeper cannot let things im- 

 pounded go 'without a replevin,' he obviously means a re- 

 plevin brought against the distrainor. . . . But the situation 

 of a pound-keeper is not that of a bailiff or servant. He is 

 a public officer." *^ So, he is not subject to replevin by the 

 owner of the impounded animals for acts done by the im- 

 pounder prior to the time when he (the pound-keeper) could 

 exacts security or lawfully refuse to perform his statutory 

 duties. **• But where he takes the beasts from the pound and 

 drives them elsewhere to feed, he loses control of them and 

 the owner may take them away and bring replevin for them, 

 if retaken.^" The pound-keeper is bound to keep them in 

 the pound only, unless the removal is necessary to save them 

 from injury, and if a constable, with notice of their removal 

 from the pound, sells them at auction at the request of the 



■"Wyman v. Turner, 14 Ind. App. 118. 



" Warden v. Chisholm, g U. C. C. P. 125. 



" Clark V. Lewis, 35 111. 417; Marshall v. Yoos, 20 111. App. 608. 



'" Badkin v. Powell, Cowp. 476. 



" Warden v. Chisholm, 9 U. C. C. P. 125; Ibbottson v. Henry, 8 Ont. 625; 

 Bills V. Kinson, 21 N. H. 448; Folger v. Hinckley, S Cush. (Mass.) 263. 



"Warden v. Chisholm, supra, commenting on Lindon v. Hooper, 

 Cowp. 414. 



•■» Mattison v. Turner (Vt.), 39 Atl. Rep. 635. 



'" Bins V. Kinson, supra. And see Harriman v. Fifield, 36 Vt. 34i- 



