Maxwell v. Cumming
| Decision Date | 31 January 1877 |
| Parties | William A. Maxwell et al., commissioners, plaintiffs in err0r. v. John B. Cumming, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Mandamus. County Matters. Before Judge Clark. Lee Su-perior Court. March Term, 1876.
Reported in the opinion.
W. H. Baldy, by M. J. Clarke, for plaintiffs in error.
Hawkins & Hawkins, for defendant. Jackson, Judge.
It seems from the record that one George F. Page, who had been indicted for murder in Lee superior court, and the case transferred to Sumter, escaped from custody, and the defendant in error, Cumming, had received a bench warrant "as special officer and detective" after Page had fled; that Cumming arrested Page, attended him in a habeas corpus trial in Atlanta, and guarded him back to trial; *for which he charged $250. All this transpired in the year 1871. On the 13th of February, 1872, according to the bill of exceptions, on the 19th of October, 1872, according to the transcript of the record, the judge of the superior court, at chambers, ex parte, passed the following order:
"Ordered by the court that the county treasurer of Lee county, pay to John B. Cumming or order, two hundred and fifty dollars, for services in detecting, securing and guarding George F. Page, indicted in Lee superior court, transferred to Sumter, for murder."
A motion was made to vacate this order, but no action had thereon, so far as this record discloses, and things remained thus until March term, 1876, when Cumming moved a proceeding, called an amended mandamus, to compel the county commissioners of Lee county, Maxwell et al., the plaintiffs in error, to pay his order for $250, and levy a tax therefor. This amended mandamus was served on the commissioners, who denied the power of the court to pass the order, and the right to make the mandamus absolute. These matters were referred to the court to decide in vacation, which, in July, 1876, at chambers, made the mandamus absolute. The commissioners excepted, and assign for error this judgment of the circuit court.
It may be well questioned whether the striking irregularity of these proceedings do not vitiate the entire ruling and judgment of the court. The first order, on which the whole proceeding is based, was granted, on motion, at chambers, and without even an affidavit to support it, and if that order be null and void, the case, the original claim, would be barred by the statute of limitations. This purports to be an amended mandamus, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bibb County v. Hancock
...Ga. 612, 613 (coroners' juries); Justices of Inferior Court of Richmond County v. State, 24 Ga. 82 (food and lodging for jury); Maxwell v. Cumming, 58 Ga. 384 (a detective for locating a prisoner); Houston County v. Kersh & Wynne, 82 Ga. 252, 10 S.E. 199 (publication of presentments of gran......
-
Fulton County v. State
...But "similar items" cannot be deemed to include unusual expenses, i.e., expenses which are not typically incurred at trial. In Maxwell v. Cumming, 58 Ga. 384 1877, this court strongly expressed its views as to the strictness with which the contingent expenses of the superior courts should b......
-
Bowers v. Hanks, (No. 2515.)
...authorities to exercise the power of taxation in any given manner, a clear and manifest legal right to do so must appear. Maxwell v. Cumming, 58 Ga. 384; Kennedy v. Seamans, 60 Ga. 612: Albany Bottling Co. v. Watson, 103 Ga. 503. 30 S. E. 2T0; Howard v. Early County, 104 Ga. 669, 30 S. E. 8......
-
Walden v. Nichols
...of certain alleged expenses incurred in the operation of the court over which he presided was invalid and could not be paid. In Maxwell v. Cumming, 58 Ga. 384, court held that a detective or special officer, appointed by a judge of the superior court to locate and arrest an escaped prisoner......