
    
      Blackledge vs. Scales
    
    -From Rowan.
    
    "TrcieWes ¿“and3pays 'v1'.0 says he is authorised eeive it — » ““e" money? r *'a co“* peteut wit* ness to b'antwia-
    This was on action brought to recover money had and received by defendant to the use of the plaintiff. Defendant being deputy sheriff of Rockingham county, received an execution at the instance of the plaintiff against one Pat- * ° terson, upon which he received die money claimed by the plaintiff iu this action. Defendant alledgcd that he had paid the money to the plaintiff, &c. — And to prove the payment he offered in evidence the receipt of Alexander Tate * for the money, saying that Tate had been authorised by the plaintiff to receive it; and the'principal question in the case was, whether Tate could be examined as a witness to prove that plaintiff had authorised him to receive the money defendant. No written authority to receive it, was given Tate.
   By the Court

We are of opinion that Tato is a competent witness to prove that plaintiff had authorised him to receive the money of defendant, on the ground that he is equally liable, let the judgment be for or against the plaintiff — » Espinasse’s Rep. 332 — For .should the plaintiff recove» against Scales, then Scales would recover of Tate.; and i? plaintiff cannot recover against defendant, then lie would be entitled to recover against Tate | so that as betwees} these parties he stands indifferent.  