
    Findley v. Adams.
    In the original action,
    Benjamin Adams, Plaintiff; John Findley, Defendant.
    
    Where the real estate of several nonresidents is advertised, in the same advertisement, to be sold for the payment of taxes; the collector cannot legally exact the whole expense from one of them; and if exacted, the excess beyond Ms just proportion may be recovered back in as-sumpsit.
    
    I HIS was an action of assumpsit, before John Williams, Esquire, a justice of the peace, to recover money paid to the defendant, as collector of the state tax in Glastenbury, beyond the amount of the tax and the legal fees. The declaration stated, that the tax was two cents, and the sum exacted and paid one dollar and twenty-two cents, which was one dollar more than the plaintiff was, by law, bound to pay.
    The defendant pleaded specially, alleging, that he went from the place of his residence in Glastenbury to Hartford, and procured an advertisement to be inserted in a newspaper printed there, giving notice to the plaintiff, who was a non-resident, that he had a tax against him, and a warrant of collection, and appointing a time and place to meet him to receive the same ; that the plaintiff neglected to attend to this notice ; that the defendant, not being able to find any personal estate of the plaintiff', levied his warrant upon the plaintiff’s land, and then went, a second time, to Hartford, and caused an advertisement to be published in two newspapers printed there, notifying the plaintiff, that so much of his real estate as would pay the tax would be sold at public vendue at the sign-post in Glastenbury ; that the defendant, ®n the day specified for the sale, repaired to the sign-post, to sell the land, at which time and place the plaintiff appeared, and paid the sum stated in the declaration. The plea averred, that the distance from the defendant’s residence to Hartford Was sixteen miles, and to the sign-post, ten miles ; that he paid one dollar for each of the advertisements ; and six Cfcnt.s ferriage, when going to Hartford.
    
      The plaintiff replied, that the defendant had taxes on the same list against forty-five other non-residents, whose names were included with the plaintiff’s in the same advertisements, and who were liable to pay their respective proportions of the costs.
    There was then a demurrer, and joinder.
    The justice adjudged the replication sufficient ; and gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover sixteen cents.
    On á writ of error to the Superior Court, that judgment was affirmed.
    Peters, (of Hebron,) for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Gould) for the defendant in error.
   Bv the Court,

The judgment was affirmed.  