This is an appeal on the judgment roll alone from a judgment in favor of defendants after a trial before a court without a jury.

The conceded facts are:

Defendants rely for affirmance of the lower court’s judgment on the following propositions:

The first proposition is untenable as to the defendant Central Surety and Insurance Corporation. If taxes secured by a bond given pursuant to section 23 of the Subdivision Map Act are allowed to become delinquent, the county may recover from the surety the principal sum of the bond without proof of loss. (Sec. 24, Act 4578, vol. II, Deering’s Gen. Laws of Cal. 1931, p. 2198.)

Neither is this proposition applicable to the defendants Patten and Menzing, because this action is not a suit to recover taxes, but is predicated upon an express contract and therefore the plaintiff county has the right to maintaih a suit to recover for the breach of the defendants’ express Contractual obligation. (Sec. 4003, subd. 1, Pol. Code.)

The second postulate is unavailable to the defendants for the reason that section 3771 of the Political Code as amended in 1933 (Deering’s 1933 Supplement, Codes, Laws and Constitutional Amendments, p. 505) prohibits only bringing of a suit against the owner or person in possession of real property to recover taxes, assessments, etc. The present action is not of such character. It is, as heretofore explained, one to recover for breach of an express contract to pay a sum of money, and is therefore not affected by the provisions of section 3771 of the Political Code.

The judgment is reversed.

Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on April 3, 1936, and an application by respondents to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on May 11, 1936.