
    The State vs. R. Irby, Adm’r of C. Irby.
    It is a part of the official duties of a coroner to collect tax executions that are placed in his hands, where the sheriff of the district is the tax collector ; and his securities are liable for his neglect, or any default which he may make, in not collecting them, &c.
    Before Evans, J., at Marlborough, Fall Term, 1836.
    The special verdict in this case finds that Charles Irby was one of the securities of George B. Whitfield, formerly coroner of Marlborough district; that Joshua David, then sheriff, and also tax collector, for the said district, issued and lodged with the said Whitfield, the coroner, divers tax executions, for which he never accounted ; and presents the question whether the securities of Whitfield are liable for this default. This presents the question, whether the collection of these tax executions was a part of the official duty of the coroner. By the Act of 1803, (see 2 Brev. 289,) the tax collectors are required to place their tax executions against such as “shall make default in payment of their taxes, for collection in the hands of the sheriff, or coroner, when the sheriff is interested, of the districts respectively, and in the hands of no other person whomsoever.”
    By the Act of 1706, (1 Brev. 186,)
      
       the coroner is directed to serve all writs or processes directed unto him, against the provost marshal, and also in all causes in which the marshal is plaintiff. This Act is sufficiently comprehensive to authorize the coroner to execute any tax execution issued against the sheriff; and the Act of 1803 must have contemplated other cases than such as the sheriff was defendant in. The words are, “to the ^coroner, when the sheriff is interested.” Now, it seems to me, that the sheriff is interested in the tax executions issued by himself; and that the Act of 1803 was intended to enforce the case under consideration. It is therefore considered that the postia be delivered to the plaintiff.
    See Act of 1839, 11 Stat. 54, § 41.
    GROUND or APPEAL.
    Because the collection of the tax executions was not the official duty of the coroner, and his securities are not liable for his neglecting to collect them.
    
      Graham, for the motion. Withers, Solicitor, contra.
    
      
       5 Stat. 456, § 18. An.
      
    
    
      
       2 Stat. 273, § 11 An.
      
    
   Curia, per

Evans, J.

This Court concurs in the opinion of the presiding judge, and the motion is refused.

Gantt, Richardson, Butlee, and Earle, JJ., concurred.  