Case ID: tapp-rep_1/html/0284-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "President.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COLUMBIANA COUNTY
    DECEMBER TERM, 1818.
    
    Present — TAPP AN, President; SMITH, BROWN, and BOWMAN, Associates.
    
    COMMISSIONERS OF COLUMBIANA COUNTY vs. WATT.
    ASSUMPSIT.
    
      Where the plaintiff adds to his name his title órname of office, without in any other way shewing that he sues in autre droit, the additio will be taken as a description o£ tbe person sueing and not oí the right in which he sues.
    The declaration complained of the defendant for that, whereas, on, &c. at, &c. the said defendant was indebted to the said A. B., C. D. and E. R “Commissioners of Columbiana county,” in the sum of-for so much money before that time had and received by the defendant, to and for the use of the said A. B., C. D. and E. E., “Commissioners of Columbiana county,” and, being so indebted, the defendant after-wards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. in consideration thereof took upon himself, and then and there promised to pay, &c. to the said A. B., C. D* and E. E. “Commissioners of Columbiana county,” &c. — The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit — On the trial, the plaintiffs offered evidence to prove that the defendant had monies in his hands, belonging to tbe county of Columbiana, which he had received as collector of taxes, and had neglected to pay over.
    Wright for the defendant,
    objected to the evidence.
    Potter for plaintiffs.
   President.

The question is, whether the plaintiffs have sued in their own right or in right of the county. They declare that the defendant was indebted to them, that he promised to pay to them, and that his refusal to pay is to their damage: no allegation is made that the defendant was indebted to the county, unless it necessarily follows that such was the case from the plaintiffs calling themselves commissioners of the county. Evidence that the defendant had received and held unaccounted for, the monies of the plaintiffs, would support this declaration, as, in case a person should sue and call himself administrator, he might give in evidence facts to shew that the defendant was indebted to him in his own right, but he could not that he-was indebted to him in right of another: it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to style himself administrator or commissioner, it must be taken as descriptive of the person sueing unless he goes further, and shews that he sues for himself but in his fiduciary character for others. The evidence must meet and support the allegations, and no evidence can be received, of any debt due to the county, in this action. — Plaintiffs had leave to amend, on payment of costs.