From Martin.
Money advanced by a stranger for the purchase of a judgment, is not a satisfaction of it, and the assignee has a right to receive the money made thereon, and in case of default of the Sheriffj to maintain an action in the name of the assignor.
This was an action of Debt upon the official bond of the Defendant Griffin, as Sheriff of Martin.
The breach assigned, was the non-payment by the Sheriff of the amount of an execution in favour of the relators, which be had collected from the executors of Jeremiah Slade.
A verdict was returned for the Plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the presiding Judge upon the following facts:
*353. The execution upon which the money was made by the Sheriff was returnable to May term, 1827, of the County ^ „ ,, ’ „ Court. On the 27th or March, preceding the. return day, the relators, by their Cashier, had assigned their Interest in the judgment and execution to Henry Slade and Samuel Hyman. $Yom the date of that assignment, the account of Jeremiah Slade on tiie books of the rela-tors was closed — and he owed them nothing.
June, 1830.
His Honor Judge MaiittN rendered judgment for the. Plaintiff, and the Defendants appealed.
Gaston, for the Defendants.
Hogg, contra.
The extinguishment of the debt to the Bank depends altogether upon the intent, with which the money was advanced — whether by way of payment or purchase. Upon that, there can be no doubt; and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover. To this point maybe cited the case of Carter v. Sheriff of Halifax. (1 Hawks, 483.)
Per Curiam. — Let the judgment below he affirmed.