ART. 8] SURETIES. 191

assignment thereof; and may, by virtue of such assignment, maintain
an action in his own name against the principal debtor.

The design of this section was to place a surety in the same position as
the creditor and to clothe him with the latter's rights. Colegate v. Fred-
erick Savings Inst, 11 G. & J. 122; Wallace v. Jones, 110 Md. 147.

The entire debt must be paid, as there can be no pro tanto assignment.
Neptune Ins. Co. v. Howard, 3 Md. Ch. 338.

The remedy of surety under this section, pointed out. Martiudale v.
Brock, 41 Md. 580.

This section has no application to a bond conditioned upon the faithful
discharge of the duties of an office. Crlsfield v. State. 55 Md. 197.

This section does not apply where a surety seeks contribution from his
co-surety. Carroll v. Bowie, 7 Gill, 41.

This section is declaratory of the common law. Watkins v. Worthington.
2 Bl. 529.

Cited but not construed in Dixon v. Dixon, 1 Md. Ch. 222.

See notes to sec. 6.

As to sureties, see art. 90.

1904, art. 8. sec. 6. 1888. art. 8, sec. 6. 1860, art. 9, sec. 6.
1763, ch. 23, sec. 8. 1880, ch. 161, sec. 6.

6. When any person shall recover a judgment against the principal
debtor and surety, and the amount due on the judgment shall be satis-
fied by the surety, the creditor or his attorney of record shall assign the
same to the surety, and such assignment being filed in the court where
the judgment was rendered, the assignee shall be entitled to execution
in his own name against the principal for the amount so paid by the
surety.

Where the holder of a promissory note gets judgment against an indorser
who pays the same, the latter is entitled to the benefit of this section. The
Judgment creditor can not refuse to make an assignment, because the maker
of the note has a defense as against the payee. Wallace v. Jones, 110 Md
147.

Equity will compel the assignment under this section, and a full payment
by a surety has been held to operate of itself as an assignment. Hollings-
worth v. Floyd. 2 H. & G. 90; Creager v. Brengle, 5 H. & J. 234; Wallace v.
Jones, 110 Md. 147.

The entire judgment must be satisfied, as there can be no pro tanto assign-
ment. Hollingsworth v. Floyd. 2 H. & G. 91.

This section is to be construed in connection with sections 7 and 8. It
applies if the surety pays the Judgment or any balance due thereon. McKnew
v. Duvall, 45 Md. 507.

This section applies only when a judgment has been rendered against the
surety, hence where the surety dies before Judgment, his administrators are
not entitled to an assignment of the judgment recovered against a principal.
Wilson D. Ridgely, 46 Md. 246.

Where a judgment in favor of the state is paid by a surety, the attorney
for the state has no authority under this section to assign the judgment.
But see section 8. Peacock v. Pembroke, 8 Md. 348; McKnew v. Duvall. 45
Md. 508; Wilson r. Ridgely, 46 Md. 245.

This section is declaratory of the common law. Watkins v. Worthington,
2 Bl. 529.

Cited but not construed in Martindale v. Brock. 41 Md. 581; Winder v.
Diffenderffer, 2 Bl. 199.

Ibid. sec. 7. 1888, art. 8. sec. 7. 1860. art. 9. sec. 7. 1763. ch. 23, sec. 8.
1864, ch. 243. 1880. ch. 161. sec. 7.

7. When any judgment shall be rendered against several sureties
and the amount unpaid on said judgment shall be satisfied by said
sureties or by any one of them, the plaintiff shall be obliged to assign