Truett v. The Justices Of The Inferior Court
Decision Date | 30 June 1856 |
Docket Number | N0. 22. |
Citation | 20 Ga. 102 |
Parties | Bright W. Truett et al., his securities, plaintiffs in error. vs. The Justices of The Inferior Court, for the use of Randolph County, defendants. |
Court | Georgia 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:
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-
Hunt v. Williams, s. 38891
...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
... ... 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
...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