Cahill v. Perrine
Decision Date | 03 February 1899 |
Citation | 105 Ky. 531,49 S.W. 344 |
Parties | CAHILL v. PERRINE et al. [1] |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Mason county.
"To be officially reported."
Action by James E. Cahill against S. P. Perrine and others to enjoin the payment out of the county levy of certain allowances made by the fiscal court. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
L. W Galbraith and E. L. Worthington, for appellant.
W. H Wadsworth and L. W. Robertson, for appellees.
This is an action by appellant, as a citizen and taxpayer of Mason county, to enjoin the payment by the sheriff of the county to his co-appellees, out of the county levy in his hands certain allowances made to them by the Mason fiscal court, on the ground that the order of the county court levying the tax does not specify distinctly, as provided in section 180 of the constitution, what part of the levy is to be used for this purpose, and that the claims were for services in guarding the property of two turnpike companies, under the act approved May 20, 1897, and could not be properly paid out of the county treasury, for the reason that these two corporations had not accepted the provisions of the present constitution, and so were not entitled to the benefit of this act passed since its adoption. The second of these objections will be noticed first, as its discussion will assist in the determination of the other.
The act referred to is entitled "An act to prevent lynching and injury to and destruction of real and personal property in this commonwealth at the hands of mobs or other riotous assemblages of persons, and to prevent the posting and circulation of threatening letters, and to prescribe penalties for the enforcement of its provisions." The parts of it material to this controversy are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hobson v. Hansen
...(park commissioners); Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Town of Greenburgh, 173 N.Y. 215, 65 N.E. 978 (1903) (road commissioners); Cahill v. Perrine, 105 Ky. 531, 49 S.W. 344, 50 S.W. 19 (1899) (guards); City of Terre Haute v. Evansville & T. H. R. Co., 149 Ind. 174, 46 N.E. 77, 37 L.R.A. 189 (1897) (......
-
Houck v. Eastchester Public Utility District
...the opinion that since the notice follows the language of the statute, it is sufficient. Burch v. Owensboro, 36 S.W. 12; Cahill v. Perrine, 105 Ky. 531, 49 S.W. 344; Cooley on Taxation, 4th ed., § 500. It is conceded that the rule in Illinois upon which the plaintiffs rely, is otherwise by ......
-
City of Somerset v. Somerset Banking Co.
...While this court has followed the rule of holding municipalities to no great minutiæ in specifying the purposes of the levy (Cahill v. Perrine, 49 S.W. 344; Pulaski Co. v. Watson, 50 S.W. 861), we are to know for which of the purposes named in the statute those levies were made, or whether ......
-
Hopkins County v. St. Bernard Coal Co.
...judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants have appealed. The validity of this statute was upheld by this court in Cahill v. Perrine, 49 S.W. 344, and upon re-examination of the question we see no reason to recede from the conclusion then reached. The material parts of the stat......