Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-07-31
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRciNiAN-PiLoT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of interest to
Our People.
REPAss ". MOORE.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
June 81, 1900.
WHEN A COUNTY TREASURER
VOLUNTARILY PAYS INTO THE
STATE AND COUNTY TREASu-
RlES THE TAXES OF A PERSON.
FOR WHICH He HAS TAX
TICKETS IN HIS HANDS FOR
COLLECTION. HE IS NOT SUBRO-
GATED TO THE LIENS OF THE
STATE AND COUNTY FOR THE
AMOUNT PAID BY HIM.
The court says:
kindred question was presented in
the case Of Clevinger V. Miller, %
Gratt., 140. 1t was there held that n
sheriff or other officer who pays an
execution In his hands for collection
without an assignment at the time OF
the judgment or debt on which it is
rounded, is not entitled to be subro-
gated to the lien of the creditor whose
debt he has paid as against other cred
itors having Judgment by liens or
otherwise. Judge Staples, discussing
the general doctrine of subrogation.
states that at law payment extinguish
eS the debt and every security given
Tor 1t; that court of equity will in
terpose to keep alive the debt in GER
tain cases; that surety Is Subrogated
to all the rights and remedies of the
creditor. and entitled to enforce his
liens. priorities and means of payment.
He points out that the doctrine OF sub
rogation does not stand upon contract.
express or implied, but upon principles
of natural justice: that as 1t is pure
~ creature Of equity 1t is only en-
forced In those cases where It's appli-
cation is just. and sanctioned by the
obligations of good faith and sound
policy. He declares at page TAI, that
ties and others who are required to
pay in order TO protect their own in
terests. and never in favor of mere
volunteers" He quotes with approval
the language of Judge Marshall In
Bank Y. Winston. . Brock. r.. 25i. who
said: There was no case in which the
doctrine of subrogation has been en-
forced in favor of ono not bound by
the original contract who discharged
it as a volunteer. He would not say
1t might not be done: but If it may.
equity will consider all the, circum-
stances and impose equitable terms
In the case before us, the treasurer
without any previous request or sub
sequent promise of indemnity. with no
a ssis nment OF the tax lien Gf II be cap
uble of assignmenO. voluntarily paid
the tax which he now seeks to recover
into the treasures of Wythe county
and the State of Virginia. There was
certainly no such duty imposed upon
tion whatever and was bound In no
degree or order to pay or advance the
taxes. IT was his voluntary act In de-
rogation of the duty imposed upon him
by law, and he is therefore not within
the broadcast and most comprehensive
definition of the right of subrogation
as stated by any text writer or decided
case that has been brought to our at
tcntion. We will not undertake to say
that n case may not arise in which the
right of subrogation would he enforced
for the protection of n collector of
taxes 1t is not necessary, and would
therefore. he unwise and improper to
do so. We prefer to walk in the path
indicated by the decisions which we
have cited and refrain from adjudi-
eating a question not involved in the
controversy before us.
We arc OF opinion that the circum-
stances shown in evidence in this case
do not warrant the relief for which ap-
pellant seeks, and the decree of the
Circuit Court is affirmed.