Robertson v. Thomas

Decision Date17 June 1918
Citation118 Miss. 423,79 So. 289
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesROBERTSON, STATE REVENUE AGENT v. THOMAS

March 1918

Division B

APPEAL from the chancery court of Lee county, HON. A. J. MCINTYRE Chancellor.

Suit by J. M. Thomas against Strokes V. Robertson, State Revenue Agent. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Thos H. Johnston, for appellant.

W. D. & J. R. Anderson and Robins & Thomas, for appellee.

OPINION

ETHRIDGE, J.

This is an appeal by the state revenue agent, from the judgment of the chancery court of Lee county, and involves the question of the power of the state revenue agent to bring suits on behalf of drainage districts created under chapter 39 of the Code of 1906. Thomas was treasurer of said district, which had been created in conformity to the Code sections, and certain assessments had been collected by the tax collector, who had deposited the funds so collected in a bank, not having placed them in a depository. The state revenue agent checked up the tax collector's books, found the money had not been paid over to the treasurer of the drainage district or placed in a depository, and made demand upon the tax collector for the funds so deposited in the bank. The tax collector gave a check for the said amount, and this suit was filed in the chancery court to restrain and prevent the revenue agent's collecting the check and retaining his twenty per cent. of the said funds. On the hearing the chancellor held that the revenue agent had no power to bring the suit, and granted the relief prayed in the bill, from which decree this appeal is prosecuted.

The powers and duties of the revenue agent are set forth in section 4738 and section 4739, Code of 1906 (section 7056 and section 7057), which reads as follows:

"The state revenue agent may appoint a sufficient number of deputies. He shall have power and it shall be his duty to proceed to suit in the proper court against all officers, county contractors, persons, corporations, companies, and associations of persons for all past due and unpaid taxes of any kind whatever, for all penalties or forfeitures for all past due obligations and indebtness of any character whatever owing to the state or any county, municipality or levee board, and for damages growing out of the violation of any contract with the state or any county, municipality, or levee board, and shall have a right of action and may sue at law or in equity in all such cases where the state or any county, municipality or levee board has the right of action or may sue. And in all cases of valuation or ownership of property which has escaped taxation, may have subpoenaed witnesses to testify before the board of supervisors, board of mayor and aldermen or levee board.

"4739. Duties.--It is the duty of the state revenue agent to investigate the books, accounts, and vouchers of all fiscal officers of the state, and of every county, municipality and levee board, and to sue for, collect and pay over all money improperly withheld from either, and he has the power to sue and right of action against all such officers and their sureties to collect any such moneys; but if the delinquency appear by a correct open account on the books of the proper accounting officer, the right of the revenue agent to sue shall arise only after he has given thirty days' notice to the delinquent officer to pay over the amounts and he fails to do so. And the right of the revenue agent to sue shall terminate after the lapse of four years from the expiration of the term of any officer. And if he shall examine the books, accounts and vouchers of any fiscal officer of the state, county, municipality or levee board and find them correct, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Board of Drainage Com'rs of Drainage Dist. No. 10 of Bolivar County v. Board of Drainage Com'rs of Washington County
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 29 Enero 1923
    ... ... 23186 Supreme Court of Mississippi January 29, 1923 ... APPEAL ... from chancery court of Washington county, HON. E. N. THOMAS, ... Chancellor ... Suit by ... the Board of Drainage Commissioners of Washington County and ... others, against the Board of Drainage ... support of the author he cites Baltimore v ... Meredith's Ford, etc., Turnpike Co., 104 Md. 351, 19 ... R. C. L., section 338; Robertson v. Thomas, 118 ... Miss. 423; 19 Corpus Juris. 615. Drainage or reclamation ... districts have generally been held to be public or ... ...
  • Standard Oil Co. v. National Surety Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 29 Marzo 1926
    ...be considered as a part of the county, nor is it a municipality, nor is it, we submit, a political sub-division of the state. Robertson v. Thomas, 118 Miss. 423. drainage district was not intended to be within the purview of the statute, and the court was manifestly correct in sustaining th......
  • Tallahatchie Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Yocona-Tallahatchie Drainage Dist. No. 1.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 17 Octubre 1927
    ... ... This doctrine is repeated in the case of Dixie Rubber Co ... v. Catoe, 110 So. 670, and further illustrated in ... Robertson v. Country Club, 212 Ala. 621; ... Southern Realty Co. v. Tchula Co-Operative Store, ... 114 Miss. 322. We are not asking any court to aid us in ... state and makes it a corporation, a subdivision of the state ... It is not strictly a municipal corporation. Robinson v ... Thomas, 118 Miss. 423. It is not like a board of ... supervisors which can speak only through its minutes. It can ... be held liable on implied contracts ... ...
  • Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. State ex rel. Moore
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 7 Enero 1924
    ...433, 58 So. 475; Pearman v. Robertson, 119 Miss. 384, 80 So. 876; Robertson v. Monroe County, 118 Miss. 520, 79 So. 184; Robertson v. Thomas, 118 Miss. 423, 79 So. 289; Jefferson Davis County v. Lumber Company, 94 Miss. 530, So. 611. It is true that in State v. Fitzgerald, 76 Miss. 502, 24 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT