Murdock v. Iredell County Com'rs

• Decision Date: 18 April 1905
• Parties: MURDOCK et al. v. IREDELL COUNTY COM'RS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

50 S.E. 567

138 N.C. 124

MURDOCK et al. v. IREDELL COUNTY COM'RS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 18, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Iredell County; Bryan, Judge.

Appeal by the commissioners of Iredell county from a judgment of the superior court on an appeal by R. K. Murdock and another from an order of the board of commissioners. Reversed.

Where the county commissioners declined to accept a tax return made by a taxpayer, and ordered the clerk of the board to make out a receipt of the taxes in conformity with a corrected return the superior court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from such order by the taxpayer or to enter judgment in his favor for the amount of taxes paid by him, though paid under protest.

This was an appeal from an order of the board of commissioners of Iredell county. The issue submitted is as follows: "Are the plaintiffs liable for the taxes assessed against them on $10,080 worth of cotton?" The jury, under direction of the judge, answered the issue "No." The defendants appealed. The plaintiffs, in June, 1902, returned $10,080 worth of cotton as solvent credit, and at the same time deducted their indebtedness, amounting to $10,080 therefrom the said $10,080 being the money used by the appellees in the purchase of the cotton returned for taxation.

H. P Grier and W. G. Lewis, for appellants.

L. C Caldwell, for appellees.

BROWN J.

His honor Judge Bryan instructed the jury upon the evidence to answer the issue "No," and gave judgment for plaintiffs for $95.61, the amount of the tax which plaintiffs had paid. In this, we think, there was error.

1. We are of opinion that the evidence failed to bring the transaction within the terms of Act 1901, p. 82, c. 7, § 33. All the evidence, including that of the plaintiffs themselves, tended to prove that the cotton was not "in the hands of a commission merchant or agent in or out of the state," but was in the plaintiffs' own hands and possession and under their control and keeping; that on June 1, 1902, it was in their warehouse in Statesville, to which they had the keys. Therefore "the value of the cotton in the hands of a commission merchant," under the facts of this case, could not very well be assessed as a solvent credit, and therefore the action of the board was legal.

2. The superior court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment set out in the record. It is true the case on appeal calls this...