
    BOROUGH OF PARK RIDGE, APPELLANT, v. JOHN C. STORMS, RESPONDENT.
    Argued March 12, 1923
    Decided May 10, 1923.
    Oil appeal from the Supreme Court in which Justice Parker filed the following memorandum:
    “Defendant is surety on the bond of a defaulting borough collector. In this suit on the bond there was a default judgment which on a previous hearing I directed to he opened on terms that there be paid the amount of defalcation conceded to he correct. This seems to have been done. Plaintiff claimed in addition the return of salary paid the defendant as collector during the period of the defalcations, and also the cost of having an audit of defendant’s books by certified public accountants. The default judgment included these amounts, and it was the questionable legality of the claims which led to the opening of the judgment, subject to further argument on the propriety of such claims, which has been had, as on a trial before the court.
    “My conclusion is that the claim for return of salary paid is not warranted in law. The collector was a public officer, not serving under any contractual relation, and was entitled to his salary by law.
    “I think also that the claim fox costs of an audit cannot be sustained. It does not seem to me to be anything that could reasonably have been contemplated by the parties as damages proximatelv to be caused by a default. No statute that I know of makes it a liability of the collector himself and until some higher authority in this state declares that such an expense is recoverable as damages for a defalcation, I am not willing to recognize such a claim.
    “The result seems to be to leave plaintiff without any lawful claim, in addition to the conceded amount of the defalcation and interest. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of form for this amount, which was due at the beginning of the suit, and paid as a condition of opening the default, with costs, but for no more than that."
    For the appellant, J ohm O. Totlen, J r., and Richard Board-man.
    
    For the respondent, Morrison, Lloyd <£• Morrison.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swaxze, Trenchard, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, White, Heppeni-ieimer, Gardner, Yan Buskirk, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.  