
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1801.
    Goldsmith’s Adm’r. vs. Pattison’s Ex’r.
    A sheriff cannot maintain an action for officers fees placed in his hands for collection, unless he has paid the amount to the officer to whom they were due.
    Assumpsit. The plaintiff’s intestate had been * sheriff to the county of Anne Arundel, and whilst he was sheriff, sundry officers fees had been placed in his hands for collection against the defendant’s testator, which fees had not been paid.. The time allowed by law, within which sheriffs can execute for fees, having elapsed, this action was brought to recover the amount due from the defendant’s testator. General issue pleaded.
    
      Shaaff, for the defendant,
    contended, that the plaintiff, before he could recover, must prove that he or his intestate had paid to the officers the amount of the fees claimed in this action.
    
      Johnson, contra.
    He did not suppose such proof wras requisite, as the estate of the plaintiff’s intestate, and the sureties in his sheriff’s bond, were answerable to the officers if the fees have not been paid.
   Chase, Ch. J.

A sheriff cannot maintain an action for officers fees placed in. his hands for collection^ unless he has paid to the officers the amount of the fees claimed of the person against whom the action is brought, . 
      
      
         Vide Ott vs. Chatline, 3 Harr. M‘Hen. 323.
     