
    James Kilpatrick against George Vandiver.
    t”To theypM°tiff money levied SiTuSney to a person ^oTbftuepí the piaiutiir, and ;Sí to the Sheriff.
    The plaintiff obtained a rule against Norris, late Sheriff of Pendleton District, to show cause why an execution issued in the above J # cause had not been collected and paid over to him, and in default thereof that an attachment should issue against him.
    The cause offered to be shown was, that the plaintiff had informed the Sheriff Norris, that he had passed away the note on which the action -, who was entitled to was brought, to one — the amount of the execution, but who was obliged to use his name in bringing the action, as he had not assigned it, and that he was no further interested than related to the costs, which he desired the Sheriff to collect and pay over to the officers of Court, that he might be discharged from all liability on account of them; and that, in pursuance of these instructions, the costs had been collected and paid over, and the principal and interest due on the execution liad been paid by the defendant to the said----, to whom the plaintiff had passed the note before the action was brought, and who, the plaintiff informed the Sheriff, was entitled to receive it.
    The presiding Judge was of opinion that the cause offered to be shown was insufficient, because the Sheriff had no written order or authority from the plaintiff either to suspend the proceedings on the execution, or to accept the settlement between the defendant and---, to whom the plaintiff had passed the note, and who was the real plaintiff, and ordered the rule to be made absolute. A motion is now made to reverse that decision, and several grounds are stated in the brief; but it is only necessary here to notice the third, which is the most prominent, to wit, that it is not necessary that the Sheriff should have written orders or authority from the plaintiff to suspend the proceedings on the exe~ cution, or to recognise the settlement between the defendant and the real plaintiff in the action, as a satisfaction of the debt due on the execution.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Johnson.

This case is so nearly allied in principle to the case of The Commissioners of the Treasury vs. John C. Allen, the opinion in which has just been delivered, that reasoning on it is deemed almost unnecessary. I can only repeat, that any fact may be proved by parol, when the law does not expressly require it to be in writing; and if the Sheriff chooses to run the risk of trusting the evidences of his transactions of this nature to the memory of man, I know no reason why he should not be at liberty to do so. There can be no question, then, that these facts would have furnished sufficient excuse to the Sheriff for not proceeding on the execution, and I feel as little difficulty in coming to the conclusion, that if he had collected and paid over the principal and interest, under these instructions from the nominal plaintiff to the person to whom the had been passed by him, and who was the real plaintiff that he would have been justifiable; and I am unable to see any good reason why a compromise or settlement made between him and the defendant should not also be considered as a good satisfaction pro tanto. I am therefore of opinion that the decision of the Court below should be reversed, so far as it makes the rule absolute against the Sheriff and that the case should be sent down to the Circuit Court to be determined on its merits.

. GrimJcé, Colcock, JVoif, Cheves, and Gantt, .T, concurred.  