The acts of Assembly which regulate the collection of the revenue, are rather obscure, and in some points apparently contradictory. But I believe they are capable of being reconciled. A full exposition of them was given by the Chief-Justice a few terms ago, in the case of Fitts v. Hawkins, (2 Hawks 394). I would only add to that case, that it is the duty of the Sheriff who is in oilice, on or after the first day of April in each year, during the time that the taxes are collectable, to collect those then due, provided the lists are delivered to him. 1 believe I shall be better understood by stating a rase or two. A is in office on the first day of April; he goes out on the first day of May. The list of taxes due ou the first day of April, have been delivered to him, either before the first day of April, or before the first day of May, that is while in office, tie is bound to collect those taxes ; wlwre the lists have not been delivered to him, lie is not bound. A is appointed to office at any time during the period, in which the taxes are collectable, say on the first day of May. The lists for taxes then collectable, due ou the first day of the preceding April, are delivered to him, not having been delivered to his predecessor, he is also bound to collect them.— Should they have been delivered to his predecessor, I do not think h it he is bound to receive them $ but should he do so, 1 think that he is nouud to collect them. For he may receive and execute process which his predeces*455sor delivers over to him, and I can see no reason, why he cannot receive the tax lists. Should he be re-appointed during the timé of collection, say in May, he continues to collect under his former appoint-merit, because, unless in cases of necessity, the act shall be entire, for it would be very inconvenient to divide it. Great difficulty would arise in ascer taining how much to charge to one set of sureties, and how much to another ; Aud the law, to avoid confusion, during the time the taxes are collectable, that is, before the day of the Sheriff’s accountability, gives him power to collect them, although his office may expire before that period. I wish it understood, that I am not satisfied on the point mentioned above, as to the liability of the new Sheriff, if he should take the lists from the. old Sheriff, who w#s in office on the first day of April. I mention it that the point may be settled. I kuow of no adjudica-catión on the subject.
In this case, Mley being in office on the first day of April, and the tax lists having been delivered to him, he was bound to collect the taxes due in 1819.
According to the view taken of the subject in Lenoir v. Wellborn, (ante 452) I apprehend that the Defendants are liable for the taxes of 1819, as well because their bond so stipulates, as because -Alley was in office in 1820, when the taxes became collectable, and was consequently bound to collect them. As Alley had also been Sheriff for the year 1819, the more regular way would have been for him to give a bond, at the time of his appointment, for the collection of the taxes j but there is no reason why a bond subsequently given, conditioned to do that, which the law had previously imposed upon him as a duty, should not be obligatory.— The nonsuit ought to be set aside.
Per Curiam. — Judgment reversed.