
    Prather vs. Johnson, et al.
    
    Error to Prince-George/s County Court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought on the Sd of August 1796, for money laid out and expended. The defendant (now plaintkF in error,) pleaded non assmapsit, and non assumpsit in fra Ires annas.
    
    1. At the trial the plaintiffs, (the defendants in error,) proved that Thomas iVilliams, deceased, was collector of the public taxes for Prince-George’s county for the years 1780, 1781 ánd Í782; and that the defendant was indebted for taxes and public dues for the years 1781 and 1782, the different sums of money stated to be due from him in thé atcourit exhibited; They then read in evidence the ttvo acts of assembly of 1784, ch. 43, and 1785, ch.- 33, authorising and empowering the securities of Thomas Williams, deceased, late collector of the tax and public dues in Prince-George’s county, to complete the'same. They also proved thdt they were tlie person's mentioned in the said acts of assembly ás the securities of the said Williams with R. Smith, in said acts also mentioned, who was since dead. They then offered to' prove that the said taxes- and pub- - lie dues, for the years 1781 and 1782, for which the defendant was indebted, together with all the taxes and public dues for the years 1780, 1781 and 1782, for Prince George’s county, were paid into the treasury by the said securities of Thomas Williams; and they read to the jury a paper purporting to be an account made out by Thomas Harwood, as treasurer of the Western shore, and signed by him, and by him sworn to before a justice of the peace for -Jlnne-Bnmdel county, on the 12th of September 1799, with a certificate of the clerk of that county court, that the person who took the affidavit, w'as a justice of the peace, &c. The defendant then offered to prove, that John Waring, one of the plaintiffs, together with the said R. Smith, were securities for the said Williams, for the collection of the taxes. and public dues of the year 1780; that A S. Brookes and T. Harwood, two other of the plaintiffs, were securities for the said Williams for the collection of the taxes and public dues of the year 1781, and that 77. Johnson and B. Berry were the securities for the said TRU-ianis for the year 1782, and that they did respectively execute for that purpose the several bonds produced, together with the said Williams, as they respectively purport to have been executed. He then offered to prove, that J. Waring, one of the plaintiffs, had not paid any money, or other thing, to the state, or to any person authorised to receive it, for or on account of any taxes or public dues for the years 1781 and 1782, for which the defendant was liable, or on account of any. other taxes or public dues in those years, nor had any person for the said Waringf or at his request, made such payment. He then prayed the direction of the court to the jury, that if the jury should be of opinion, from the evidence, that/. Waring, one of Uie plaintiffs, had not paid any sum to the state for or on account of any taxes or public dues for the years 1781 and 1782, for which the defendant was liable, or for any other taxes or public dues for those years, and if no other person had made such payment for the said Waring,- or at his request, that then the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. But the Court, [Stone, Ch. J.]] refused to give the direction. The defendant excepted.
    
      Where ¿he sure» lit s of Vk deems» ed, late a collector of public tuxes, were compelled, as suchvto pay the amount due from the collector to ¿he state,-anti for their \ eimlnu’\«= meat, an act of assembly autiioiis«(i them to bring1 suits aariimt persons 'owing ¿axes, in the same man» s*f?ra9 V/ might — J/eW. that as W could have brought suits and recovered on proof of the taxes being1 due, -md that civy were paid by him to the state, the sureties could do the same; and that it w ,s oi no consequence whether rtie sureties all together paid, or only one of them paid, or the collector hud pnirip ibr by substitution they stood in the place of the col lector.
    If A, as surety of Ii, s a debt due to C, cm proof oí the payment, A could recover of B, and an «ral or written acknowledgment by C, of the payment, would be evidence >n the suit against 13.
    When an act of assembly directs that the certificate of a public officer shall bo evidence, a paper product d wi'ii his name will be evidence prima facie unless i)w name is proved not to have been siguen by bun, ns where a paper, purporting to bti an account made out by T H, as ureasuier of the W and signed by him, and by him sworn-to before a justice of the peace, with a certificate of the clerk of the county thut such person w» a justice, &e. \y.u> penciled te be read m evidence- under Mu. act in li Jf efi
    
    
      2. The defendant then objected to the paper herein be - fore mentioned, purporting to be an account made out by jP Harwood, as treasurer of the western shore, being read in evidence. Rut the court overruled the objection, and permitted the paper to be read in evidence. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he prosecuted the present writ of error.
    The cause was argued before Ciíase, Ch. J. and Nicholson, Earle and Johnson, J.
    
      Shanff, for the Plaintiff in error,
    contended, 1. That a joint assumpsit to the plaintiffs below was laid in the declaration, and that there was proof that there could be no assumpsit to J. Waring, as he paid no money, and therefore he could not sue. He referred to Ott vs. Chapline, 3 Harr. & M‘Hen. 323, and Goldsmith's Adm'r. vs. Pattison's Ex'r. 1 Harr. & Johns. 205.
    2. That the account stated by the treasurer to be copied from the treasury books, was not evidence, because there was no proof that T. Harwood was the treasurer, nor was his signature to the account proved. That the probat to the account, that it was truly copied from the books of the treasury office, was not according to the act of 1798, ch. 108, that act requiring that the account should be attested by the treasurer, and sworn to be a true copy by the person attesting It, and there was no proof that he did attest it. It also says, that the account proved according to that act shall be evidence in the same manner, and to have the same effect, as if the original books, &c. were themselves produced, and in this case if the books had been produced, they would not of themselves have been evidence.
    No Counsel argued for the Defendants in error.
   Johnson, J,

The sureties of Williams were compelled as such, to pay the money due from him to the state, and for their reimbursement the acts of assembly authorised them to bring such suits as Williams might — now Williams could have brought a suit, and recovered on the proof of the taxes having been due, and that they were paid by him do the state. The securities then can do the same; and it is of no moment whether they all together paid, or one of them paid, or the collector paid, for by substitution they stood in his place.

If A as surety for B, pays a debt due to C, on the proof of the payment, A could recover of B, He could recover on C’s saying A had paid, and of course, if C wrote that A had paid, surely it is evidence whether the writing was in a book or a letter.

When an act of assembly directs the certificate of a public officer to be evidence, a paper produced with his mame will be evidence prima facie, unless the name is proved not to have been signed by him.

JUDGMENT AESTRMEB,,.  