Truett v. The Justices Of The Inferior Court

Decision Date30 June 1856
Docket NumberN0. 22.
Citation20 Ga. 102
PartiesBright W. Truett et al., his securities, plaintiffs in error. vs. The Justices of The Inferior Court, for the use of Randolph County, defendants.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Fi. fa. and illegality, in Randolph Superior Court. Decided by Judge Kiddoo, at Chambers, May 24th, 1856.

A fi. fa. in favor of the Justices of the Inferior Court for the use of Randolph County, was issued against Bright W. Truett, Tax Collector of said county, and his securities, to collect certain taxes which had come into the hands of said collector, and which were still in his hands. To this fi. fa. an affidavit of illegality was filed by defendants, and the cause was submitted to the Judge, upon the following agreement:

"It is agreed by and between Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, that the same (case stated) shall be submitted to the decision of his Honor, David Kiddoo, Judge of the Superior Court, for his decision upon the illegality on the above stated fi. fa. in the first instance, without awaiting a resort to the other tribunals and forms, subject to a revision of his decision by the Supreme Court, to be taken by either party on bill of exceptions, as in other cases, on the following state-ment of facts: It is agreed that Truett, as Tax Collector, collected one hundred per cent, on the State tax. It is farther agreed, that 121/2 per cent, of the amount was assessed for poor school purposes, without a recommendation by the Grand Jury or School Commissioner. It is further agreed, that subsequent to the. collection of taxes for 1853, the Inferior Court passed the following order, to wit:

'Whereas, an order was entered on the minutes of this Court at the July Term, 1853, ordering and directing the Tax Collector of Randolph County to collect twelve and one-half per cent, for poor school fund, when the Grand Jury nor School Commissioner had neither made a recommendation for the assessment of said tax. It is therefore ordered by the Court, that said sum of twelve and one-half per cent, collected as aforesaid, be paid over to the County Treasurer by the Tax Collector, for county purposes, it originally being the intention of the Court that it should be collected for that purpose. February 6th, 1854.'

Which order provided for its application in another manner, and which order was passed by the Inferior Court in proper form. Shall Truett and his securities be responsible for the twelve and one-half per cent, collected by him? Have the Inferior Court any authority to force its collection from defendants? Is illegality a remedy?"

Upon a submission of the facts above agreed on, a motion was made by Counsel for defendants in error, to dismiss the illegality referred to. The Court sustained the motion and passed an order dismissing the illegality, ordering the H. fa. to proceed; and that the said order, together with the agreement of Counsel, be entered on the minutes of the Court. Plaintiff's Counsel excepted to this decision, and assigns the same as error.

Douglass & Douglass, for plaintiffs in error.

Hood...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hunt v. Williams, s. 38891
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 13 Septiembre 1961
    ...the motion for a new trial. A nunc pro tunc entry signifies 'now for then,' and 'is granted to answer the purposes of justice.' Truett v. Justices, 20 Ga. 102. While an entry nunc pro tunc cannot be made to serve the office of supplying non-action on the part of the court, it may be used fo......
  • The State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Seibert
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 25 Junio 1894
    ... ... City of St. Louis v. Seibert, State Auditor Supreme Court of Missouri June 25, 1894 ...           ... Peremptory writ ... 4, Const. Mo.; Loan Association v ... Topeka, 20 Wall. 653; Truett v. Justices, 20 ... Ga. 102. It follows, then, that it could not ... persons of an inferior degree and concludes with general ... words, the general words shall not ... ...
  • Richmond County v. Richmond County Reformatory
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1914
    ...it never belonged to the county, in case of a recovery from the corporation, what would become of the fund? In Truett v. Justices, etc., 20 Ga. 102, it was held: "A tax originally assessed and collected, under an order of the inferior court, * * * which is illegal and void, cannot, for that......
  • James v. Suggs
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 1856
  • 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