
    Beach against Vandenburgh.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1813.
    X collector op ICICTQS cal" led at aje ‘ fo”iw ?'X afterwards thc'statetreabrought sontionof against B* for money rcroveruje a held that this voiuntary payment byV. without, the request of B. and no sub°mise to repay, the action was maintain*» ble.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Vanden- * * “ burgh brought an action of assumpsit against Beach, before the justice, and declared for money paid, laid out, &c. for the defendant.
    There was a trial by jury.
    The plaintiff below proved that he was the collector of taxes for the town of Beekman, and called at the house of the defendant for his tax, when he was absent: and the time to pay the . e A ^ county treasurer being come, the plaintiff paid the defendant s tax to the county treasurer. There was no evidence that the defendant ever requested the plaintiff to pay the tax for him, or that he had promised to repay him. plaintiff for 4 dollars and 71 cents. The jurv found a verdict for the
   Per Curiam.

This case is within the principle decided in r Jones v. Wilson. (3 Johns. Rep. 434.) A payment on request, , ,,-t or a subsequent promise to repay, was necessary to be shown, The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  