case Perkinson against Gilford and other Hilary term car roll in debt for  money levy under a be made fa in b r on a judgement in c b it be sufficient to  allege that the record be duly remove SC march SC Jones debt lie on a  judgement recover debt lie against the executor of a sheriff for the  nonpayment of money levy on a become facias debt against Gilford and other  executor of William collier Esq late sheriff of the county of Dorset for  twoandtwenty pound ten shilling whereas the plaintiff have recover in the  common plea against the executor of William Pawlett a debt of one hundred  pound and twoandtwenty pound ten shilling for damage the debt and damage de  good testator si c et si non the say twoandtwenty pound ten shilling de good  not common with others and the record be remove into this court the plaintiff  have a become facias direct to the say William collier sheriff of Dorset for  the levy of the say twoandtwenty pound ten shilling damage of the good of the  say executor and by virtue thereof be levy the say twoandtwenty pound a   b  cro James cro Elizabeth more Yelv march Jones Bulst dalt hob foster loft  Cowper Bac ab croak car er p ten shilling and afterward die without pay c  whereupon be demand it of the say executor and they have not pay it per quod  action to grow progressively the defendant plead non debet and find against  they mallet move in arrest of judgement first because the recovery of the say  debt of S be in the common plea and the execution by become facias be in the  king bench and he do not show how he come out of the common plea into this  court to have execution say non allocatur for in the record it be mention that  it be here duly which shall be intend to be by a writ of error or other due  mean and it be not necessary to show all the circumstance how it come hither  the second objection because it do not appear that upon the become facias  award it be ever return serve here so as there be no record to charge he for  if there be any record appear that he have levy it then peradventure be may  charge the sheriff the three objection because be charge he in action of debt  whereas there be never any such action bring before but if it have appear by  the record that the money be levy he may have have account or action upon the  case or a to know facias but never a action of debt the four objection that  although the action lie against the sheriff himself yet it lie not against his  executor for the nonpayment be a personal wrong wherewith his executor be not  Chargeable as debt upon a escape lie not against a sheriff executor but  Berkley Jones and myself Brampston be absent agree that the action well lie  for to the second and three objection the become facias be duly execute and  the money levy by the sheriff the executor of Pawlett the defendant in the  first action be discharge and may aver and plead it against any new execution  to be award against he as Henry fol prove and the croak car sheriff be  Chargeable for the money to he who recover it and as it be allow that be may  be Chargeable in account as mallet say so it be agree he may be Chargeable in  debt for the plaintiff may have either debt or account as appear in Henry and    a Slades case and as Berkley say the case be in the yearbook I Henry that a  collector by acceptance of a tally be Chargeable in debt so the sheriff have  levy the money be Chargeable for so much in debt to he who recover and mallet  confess that in the common plea it be adjudge where the sheriff return a  become to make debt lie against he and Berkley say it be all one when he  receive the money for he be then liable although be return not the writ for  his not return shall not aid nor excuse he and for the four objection they  hold that the sheriff executor be as well Chargeable as himself for as Jones  say there be a diversity where the sheriff be Chargeable in his life for a  personal tort or misfeasance there his person be only Chargeable and there  action noritur cum mask but where he be Chargeable for levy of money and not  pay it over that be for a duty and there if he die his executor be Chargeable  as well as himself which be the reason that for a escape by the sheriff his  executor be not Chargeable but there will be great mischief if the sheriff  executor shall not be alive in this case for the plaintiff have a duty due to  he from the executor of Pawlett the first defendant who pay it to the sheriff  and thereby be discharge thereof and if the plaintiff shall not recover it  against the sheriff executor he shall be without remedy which the law will not  suffer a wherefore they all agree that the action well lie and rule be give to  have judgement enter unless c a see the case of Hamble v Trott Cowp croak car  er p