
    CENTREVILLE:
    MAY TERM, 1835.
    Hopson, et al. vs. Hoge & Lester.
    Notice to a constable of a motion for judgmeut, to be made against him and his securities, for money collected by him, is sufficient to authorize a judgmeut against him and his sureties. Notice to the latter is not necessary.
    Where one of the securities of a constable died after the motion was made, but before judgment; it was held, that judgment could be rendered against his administrator, without a scire facias to revive the motion.
    When a constable gave his receipt to the plaintiffs, to collect cert ain notes, the legal interest of which notes was in third persons; it was held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for the amount collected on the notes by the constable, and not accounted for by him.
    This was a motion made by the defendants in error, against Hopson (who was a constable) and his securities,. Jeremiah Barnes and William M. Beasly., for money c0^ected ^7h™f°r ^ plaintiffs below, and not accounted for.
    The money was collected by Hopson, in March 1833, and the defendants in error notified Hopson, that a motion for judgment, would be made and entered against him and his securities at the May term, 1833, of the county court, for the amount of money collected by him as aforesaid. No notice was given to his securities. At the May term of the county court, the motion was made, and the suit put on the docket, and was continued from term to term until February, 1834, when a judgment was rendered against him and Jeremiah Barnes, one of his securities, (the other, William Beasly, having died after notice had been given, and the suit commenced, but before judgment was rendered.) The defendants appealed to the circuit court, when, at February term, 1835, a judgment was rendered against Hopson and Barnes, and also against John B. Anthony, administrator of William Beasley, deceased. The judgment was to be “levied of the proper goods and chattels, lands and tenements of Hopson and Barnes, and of the goods and chattels, rights and credits, which were of William M. Beasly, deceased, in said Anthony’s hands to be administered.
    From the constable’s receipts, it appeared that some of the money collected, and for which judgment was rendered, was collected on notes, the legal right to which was in other persons.
    The defendants prosecuted an appeal in error to this iSOurt.
    
      J. W. Combs, for the plaintiffs in error. ,
    
      A. Wright, for defendants in error.
   Green J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. In this case, the first question is, whether the plaintiffs below had a right to their judgment against the securities without' their having notice ? This court decided, in the case of Baxter vs. March, (1 Yerg. Rep. 460,) that the securities need not have notice. In this case the constable had notice, and his liability being fixed, that of his securities followed as a consequence.

2. But it is said that Beasly, one of the securities, having died after the motion was made, and before judgment, that there ought to have been a sci. fa. to revive the motion against Anthony, his administrator. This was not necessary. If Beasly, while living, was not entitled to notice, there is no reason why his administrator should have such notice.

3. It is objected, that some of the money collected by file constable, and for which the judgment was given, appears to have been collected upon notes, the legal right to which was,in another person than the plaintiffs.

This can be no defence to the constable. He gave his receipt for the notes to the plaintiffs, and agreed to account with them for the money when collected. The possession of the notes .by them is sufficient evidence that tjjey were entitled to the money, and the constable was bound to pay it to them.

Judgment affirmed.  