
    Armstrong and Pinkston against The State.
    DECEMBER, 1823.
    1, It is not necessary that notice to a delinquent tax Collector and securities should be in the name of the “ State of s/tld-bama^ or directed to any officer to execute the same.
    
      % A fax Collect- or’s Bond conditioned that be shall faithfully perform all the duties of Assess- or and tax Collector for the County of"— is sufficient, though it omit the recital of his appointment.
    3, The Comptroller’s notice that he will move for judgment for a certain sum, which is the ¡amount due the State from said J. W. A. as Collector of faxes in M- County, for the year 1822, is a sufficient shewing of a cause of action.
    4, A party who would avail himself of the privilege of a trial by Jury, must appear and claim it.
    5, The privilege of a freeholder as to being sued only in the County of his residence, does not extend to a motion against a delinquent fax Collector and secuii-, ties.
    6, Judgment for' the sum due, as, Damages for the default, good, al-¿ though not called j “fifteen per cen-J turn Damages.”
    
    AT a special term of the County Court of Dallas County^ on the second Monday in June, 1823, the Sheriff of Montgomery County returned the following notice :
    “ Comptroller’s office, Cahawba, Alabama.
    
    
      “ To James Armstrong, Minor W. Pinkston, and Joseph-Fitzpatrick, Esqrs.”
    
      “ You are hereby notified that I shall by the Attorney “ General move for judgment against you at a special session “ of the County Court of Dallas County, to be held on the' “ second Monday in June next, for the sum of one thousand “ one hundred and ninety-three dollars, fifty-four and an “ half cents, which is the amount of the balance due the “ State from the said James W. Armstrong, as Collector of “ taxes in Montgomery County, for the year 1822 ; for' “ whom, you, the said Minor W. Pinkston and Joseph Fitz“patrick, are securities in the bond in file in my office.
    “ Given under my hand- the 9th day of May, 1823. .
    “ SAMUEL PICKENS, Comptroller.”
    “ Received 19th May, 1823. W. R. Ross, Sheriff.—I have “ personally served two of the within named persons) (James “ fV. Armstrong and Minor W. Pinkston,) with a copy of “ this citation, 21st May, 1823. Mon est as to Fitzpatrick.- “ W. R. Ross, Sheriff.”
    The Record then sets out a copy of a Bond, (which the Comptroller certifies is a true copy from the original on file in his office) from said Armstrong, Pinkston, and Fitzpatrick, to the Governor' and lfis successors, in the penalty of i 10.000, dated the 25th day of February, 1822, with condition as follows :
    “ The condition of tho above obligation is such, that if “ the above bound James W. Armstrong shall faithfully per- “ form all the duties of Assessor and Collector for the Coun- “ ty aforesaid, (Montgomery,) which are, or' may be by law required of him while in office, then tbe above obliga- “ tion,” &c. The Bond is certified by the Judge of Montgomery County Court to have been taken and acknowledged in his presence. Then follows a copy of an ac - count :
    
      Dr. James IV. Armstrong, Assessor and Collector o Montgomery County, 1822.”—In which, under the dat< Í822, are stated debits for taxes assessed, auction duties and tavern licenses: and credits for payments, insolvencies; and commissions. The .balance stated at $1193 54¿. The Comptroller certifies this account to be a correct transcripi from the books of his office : “ and that the balancé due “ the State from James W. Armstrong is eleven hundrec “ and fifty-four cents and an half.” 9 f > t i
    The defendants not appearing, the County Court, on motion of the Attorney General, rendered judgment in favom of the State against Armstrong and Pinkston, for $1193 54¿ “ which the said James W. Armstrong is indebted to the State as aforesaid ; as also the sum of $179 03, accord- “ ing to the Statutes in this case made and provided, toge- “ ther with the sum of $140rW interest, besides costs of suit.’:
    They sued out a writ of Error to this Court, and assigned as Ijrrors,
    1st, The process is void, not being in the name, of the State of Alabama, or directed to any officer whose duty if was to execute it.
    2d, The Bond is void. It does not pursue the Statute, or shew that Armstrong was Collector when it was taken.
    3d, There was no cause of action shewn, nor was there a Jury to find a verdict as to the facts.
    4th, The plaintiffs in Error were not sued in the County of their residence and freehold.
    5th, The judgment is uncertain.
    The case was argued by II. G. Perry for the plaintiff in Error, and T. White, Attorney-General, for the State.
   Judge Crenshaw

delivered the opinion of the Court.

As to the first assignment—The notice required in a sum* mary proceeding is not strictly process ; at least, not such process as by the Constitution is required to be in the name of the State. The Statute does not require that the notice shall be directed to the Sheriff or other officer. It only requires that it shall be served by the Sheriff of the County where the defendant may be found.

As to the second assignment—;We deem the Bond sufficient, and pursuant to the requisitions of the Statute ; and that from the Bond it is to be inferred that Armstrong was Assessor and Collector of taxes for the County of Montgomery, entering on thp duties of the office, when it was taken before the officer appointed bylaw to receive it.

As to the third assignment—We think that a sufficient cause of action appeal's in the notice, the Comptroller’s certificate shewing the balance due- from Armstrong to the State for taxes, and indeed throughout the Record. As to the trial by Jury — the defendants did not appear and claim this privilege, and consequently they dispensed with ifc.

The matter of the fourth assignment, if it could have availed the defendants, should have been plead in abatement. But the Statute, which prohibits a freeholder from beingsued out of the County of his residence, is repealed so far as relates to motions against delinquent tax Collectors and their securities, by the Statutes which authorized this motion. These Statutes direct that service of -such notice shall be' made on the defendants by the Sheriff of the County where they may be found, and that the trial shall be had in the Circuit or County Court of Dallas County.

As to the fifth assignment — We are unable to discover any uncertainty in the judgment. It is for a specific amount, and sufficiently certain to authorize an execution.

We are satisfied that the whole proceeding is in strict compliance with the requisitions of law, and are unanimous in affirming the judgment. 
      
      
         Act of 1820, Laws Alaba. 769. Act of 1821, 772.
     
      
      
        Laws of Alaba. 749, sect. 2.
      
     
      
      
        Id. 770, sect. 4.
     
      
      
         ,3d of 1827.
     
      
       Id. 157, sect. 12.
     