
    Freeman, trustee, vs. Holcombe, marshal.
    After the taxes due to a city have been paid to it, and. the fi.fa. therefor has been transferred to the party so paying, the power, of the marshal as a collecting-officer of the city is at an end, and-he has no further control of the fi.fa. than to enforce it at the instance and for the benefit of the transferree. Hence, mandamus will not lie at the instance of a third party to compel him to again transfer the fi.fa. on receipt of the amount thereof.
    Tax. Officers. Executions. Mandamus. Before Judge Stewart. Fulton Superior Court. April Term, i88r.
    During the spring term, 1881, of Fulton superior court, James C. Freeman filed a petition for a mandamus requiring Wm. H. Holcombe, as marshal of the city of Atlanta, to transfer to him a tax fi. fa. issued by said city against John R. Wallace, and which was then in said Holcombe’s hands for collection. The following is, in substance, the state of facts set out in said petition: The said tax fi. fa. was issued August 21st, 1875, forthe taxes of said Wallace for the year 1875. ’On March xoth, 1876, it was regularly transferred by said Holcombe, as such marshal, to Wm. H. Venable, who was the owner when said petition was filed. ' On August 6th, 1877, sa^ fi- fa' was levied upon a tract of land in Atlanta particularly described in the petition. This tract of land at the date of such levy was owned by the petitioner, and has ever-since belonged to him. On May 7th, 1881, petitioner tendered to said Holcombe, as such- marshal, in gold coin and legal tender notes of the United States; the amount due upon said fi.fa., and requested said Holcombe, as such marshal, to transfer to him said execution. Said Holcombe, acting under the instructions of said Venable, refused to accept such amount so tendered and make such transfer, but, on the contrary, declared his purpose to collect said fi. fa. by the sale of the property levied on, and advertised the same to be sold, the first Tuesday in June, 1881. Petitioner made in his petition a continuing tender of the sum due upon the execution, and .prayed that .the writ of mandamus might issue, requiring said Holcombe, as such marshal, to accept the money and make the transfer. A mandamus nisi was issued. On the hearing thereunder,the defendant moved to dismiss the petition. The motion was sustained and plaintiff excepted.
    Henry Hillyer ; Marshall J. Clarice, for plaintiff in error.
    Hopkins-& Glenn, for defendant.
   Jackson, Chief Justice.

. This case presents the single question whether a mandamus should have been issued .against the marshal of Atlanta requiring him to transiera tax fi.fa. .for city taxes to the applicant. The marshal had received the city tax due from W. H. Venable and transferred the tax execution ■to him, and we think that the judge of thesuperior court was clearly right in ruling that he had nothing further to do with it as the collecting officer of the city. The transferree had acquired by the transfer all the rights of the city to the fi. fa. The paper was his, as much as it had been before the city’s, property, and it was for him thenceforth to enforce it.

Such is the plain provision of the act of 1872. Code, §891. It enacts that the “ transferee shall have the same rights as to enforcing said execution and priority of payment as might have been exercised or claimed before said transfer.” These words convey the title out of the city into the first transferree, and.so far as the officer of the city for collecting taxes for it is concerned, his functions were at an end.

The section of the Code does not even make it necessary that the city’s name be used; if it did, it would be for the. use of the transferree and merely .nominal. All that the marshal could be required to do is to levy and make the money on the fi. fa. as the levying officer of the city by order of the transferree, just as the sheriff would do in ordinary executions when transferred; and when that is done the execution is satisfied. If the transferree wished to transfer it, that is another question,' and would be his business, and concern him only.

Judgment affirmed.  