
    Bailey, Trustee, &c. vs. Lockhart and others.
    
    The sheriff is the collector of taxes under the laws of this state, and the appointment of any other person by the county court to perform that duty, is void. The act of 1801, eh. 10, authorizing appointments of tax collectors, has no prospective operation.
    Charles Bailey, as county trustee, for the county of Montgomery, moved the county court of said county, for a judgment against John Rice, and Eli Lockhart, William A. Cook and others, as his securities, for the taxes collected by said Rice, for the years 1825 and 26, and not paid or accounted for by him. The court rendered a judgment against said Rice, and his securities, for the sum of $1533, 51-100. The securities applied-for and obtained a certiorari. The circuit court discharged the defendants from all liability, from which judgment Baily prosecuted an appeal in error to this court.
    The facts necessary to be noticed, were as follows: That the said John Rice was appointed collector of the county and state taxes for the years 1825 and'26, by the county court of Montgomery county, the sheriff of said county, Cornelius Crusman, refusing to collect said taxes; that said Rice accepted said appointment and entered into bond, with the defendants below, as his securities, for the faithful performance of his duties, &c.; that said Rice by himself and his deputy, collected the taxes for said years; that a balance, to wit, the amount for which the judgment was rendered in the county court, still remained Unpaid. Upon these facts the court dismissed said motion, and rendered judgment for the defendants, upon the ground that the county court had no power to appoint said Rice collector of the taxes.
    
      F. B. Fogg, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Anderson and Clark, for defendants in error.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case we have given all the acts of assembly on the subject a careful examination, from which we arrive at the conclusion, that there is no error in the judgment of the circuit court. The act of 1801, ch. 10, was passed to provide for the collection of taxes in cases where the sheriffs had theretofore failed or refused to give bond and security for their collection. The act has no prospective operation, and does not contemplate in future the existence of such a case. At the same session, ch. 12, the legislature passed a law which was intended to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of such a case. In that act they provide, that the sheriff, immediately on his election, shall enter into bond with security for the collection and payment of the public and county taxes, and that upon his failure to do so, the office should become vacant, and another sheriff should be appointed. No other act authorizes the appointment of a collector distinct from the sheriff, and we therefore conclude the county codrt of Rlontgomery, in this case, had no power to appoint one.

Judgment affirmed.  