In the matter of Boyce, collector of Fort Ann, against Russell, treasurer of Washington county

In the matter of Boyce, collector of Fort Ann, against Russell, treasurer of Washington county. A town col-pay moneys county°m and charge it in the “latter.W1 A county treasurer,refusing . to pay ra°tneJausTfb liable to an ac Mandamus does not lie where party has remedy by action. Streeter having an unliquidated claim against the county óf Washington, assigned it for á váluabTe considera to Dot7) who presented the claim to the board of stipend sot's And it was audited by tliém At f 193 95. Doty, at the some time, gave notice to the bounty treasurer and the stipervisors, that hé was the assignee. On the 6th jan. 1823, ° , , ’ he presénted the Account, As audited, to Boyce; the bblléctor of Fort Ann, who paid it, and on the 11th Feb. 1824,. in his settlement with Russell, the county treasurer, claimed have A credit of this sum. It was credited Accordingly, except 75 09, which the treasurer held to answer a certain order for that amount drawn on him by Streeter in favor of one Harvey, on the 16th of Sept. 1820. On these facts, Willard moved for a mandamus, to compeli Russell to credit the whole sum paid by Boyce. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The town collector has ño right to pAy off claims upon the county in this manner. Hé must pay all the ihoñey which he collects to the county treasürér, éxcépt in those cases wherein he is otherwise directed by statute. Doty might have had his action against the treasurer had he refused to pay him without sufficient cause. The rule is, that when the party has a remedy by action, this Court will not interfere by mandamus. Boyce does not come for relief as a public officer ; for he has travelled beyond the line of his duty ; and we must regard his acts as those of Any other individual; Motion denied.