
    Tutt v. Lewis’s Executors.
    [Saturday, October 16, 1802.]
    Contractor for State — Individual Liability. — A man, contracting on behalf of the State, is not liable in his individual capacity.
    In assumpsit brought by Brooke and Tutt against Lewis’s executors, the jury found a special verdict, which stated that in the year 1777, the defendant’s testator contracted with the plaintiffs, as public contractors for the building of a magazine, as stated in the account annexed to the verdict, which begins thus: “Dr. Colonel Fielding Lewis, deceased, (on account of the Commonwealth of Virginia,) to Richard Brooke and James Tutt.” Then follows the items, which are charged in specie, and are for work, and materials advanced : But, sums more than equal to the amount of the account, are credited, as paid in paper money; and, at the foot of the account, these words are added: “By our agreement with Colonel Lewis, he was to find us plank, nails, shingles, locks, hinges, paint, and glass, which he failed to do. We were obliged to furnish the articles, charged in paper currency as above, -in order to carry on the work, the 10,000 shingles Colonel Lewis purchased, and charged us with in our private account.” That the plaintiffs completed the work, and made the advances, as staled in the said account. The verdict *then finds for the plaintiffs, 7971. 14s. 9%, if the Court shall be of opinion that Lewis was liable to pay the account, and that the payments in paper money are not a discharge in full, but otherwise, for the defendants. The County Court gave judgment for the defendants, which the District Court affirmed ; and the plaintiffs appealed to this Court.
    
      
       The principal case is cited in foot-note to Syme v. Butler, 1 Call 105.
    
   The Court

affirmed the judgment, upon the principle settled in the case of Syme v. Butler, executor of Aylett, 1 Call 105, that a man, contracting on behalf of the State, was not liable in his individual capacity.  