Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[blocks in formation]

since the execution of said bond, the tax of said county for said year having been assessed to the sum of forty thousand eight hundred and fifty-six dollars, it is ordered that the said William A. Alexander, as such sheriff and collector, be, and he is hereby required to execute a new bond, in the sum of eightyfive thousand dollars, and file the same with the clerk of this court, on or before the first day of the next term of this court."

Alexander, having failed to execute and file a new bond as required by the order of the court, he was, on the 15th of November, 1861, after citation to show cause, etc., removed from office, by the court, for such failure.

Afterwards, on the 17th of December, 1861, he applied to the Circuit Court, of Hempstead county, for a mandamus against Simon T. Sanders, clerk of the County Court, to compel Sanders to deliver to him, as collector, the tax book for the year 1861.

Sanders entered his appearance to the petition, waived the issuance of an alternative writ, and filed his response.

Alexander demurred to portions of the response, replied to other portions: and upon the hearing, a peremptory mandamus was refused, and he appealed to this court.

Whether Sanders was in default for not delivering the tax book to Alexander before he was required to execute a new bond, by the County Court, or whether his excuses for refusing to do so are sufficient, it is not necessary in this case, to determine. We need only decide whether he was legally obliged, and compellable by mandamus, to deliver the tax book to Alexander, after he had been required by the county court to execute and file a new bond, and had failed to do so, etc.

By the law, as contained in Gould's Digest, the sheriff was required, each year, to execute and file his bond as collector, on or before the 10th of January, in a sum at least double the amount of taxes levied for state and county purposes, and on failure or refusal to file the bond at the time, and in the manner prescribed by law, he forfeited his office, and was subject to

[blocks in formation]

removal by the County Court, on citation, etc. Dig. ch, 143, scc. 52–3-6.

By an act approred 21st February, 1859, (Pamph. Acts, 1858, p. 235,) which was passed after the publication of the Digest, it is declared: “ That so much of the existing law as requires that the collector of revenue shall file his bond, as such collector, on or before the tenth day of January, be and the same is hereby repealed, and instead of said tenth day of January, each collector shall be required to file his bond on or before the first day of June, in each year, the same to be conditioned, and the penalties for failure to file the same to exist as now provided for by law,etc.

The defect in the previous statute intended to be remedied by this act, was obviously this--By the previous law, as contained in the Digest, the collector was required to file his bond, on or before the 10th of January, in a sum at least double the amount of taxes levied for state and county purposes, when the state and county taxes to be levied for the year, could not be then known: and could not be accurately ascertained until the assessment list was returned, and the rate of county taxes fixed by the County Court. But by postponing the execution of the bond until the first of June, the proper sum for the penalty could be correctly ascertained, the law requiring the assessment list to be returned, adjusted, and the rate of county tax to be fixed by the county court before that time. See Dig. ch. 148, sec. 34, 38, 45; ch. 147, sec. 4.

It is probable that when the appellant's bond was executed and approved, 10th of January, 1861, the act of 21st of February, 1859, was overlooked, and the law as contained in the Digest followed.

After the assesment list had been returned, adjusted, and the rate of county taxes for the year fixed by the county court, it was ascertained, as alleged in the response of the appellee, that the State and county taxes to be collected, amounted to $21,360 19; besides which additional assessments were made, under ordinances of the convention.

The attention of the County Court having been called to the

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

fact, by the appellee, that the bond of the appellant was not in a sum at least double the amount of taxes levied for State and county purposes, as required by law, the court made the order of 5th of August, 1861, above copied, requiring him to execute a new bond, etc.

That the court had the legal power to make this order, we do not doubt, and the court having deemed it expedient to make the order, for the safety of the public revenue, and the appellant having failed to comply with the order, and being in default when he applied to the Circuit Court for the mandamus, to say nothing of his removal from office, the court did not err in refusing him the writ to compel the appellee to deliver to him the tax book.

The court having the legal power to make the order requiring the appellant to give a new bond, if there was any error in its proceedings in the matter, the remedy of the appellant was by appeal, or other appropriate application to the proper supervising tribunal. The order coming before us collaterally, and not directly, we can only pass upon the judicial power

of the County Court to make it.

The judgment is affirmed.

CRAIG vs. PRICE.

Before a bill of exchange payable one day after sigbt, can be legally protested for

non-payment, it must be presented for acceptance, then one day allowed for the bill to mature, after it was shown to the drawee, and three days of grace.

[blocks in formation]

The holder of a bill, purporting on its face to be for value received, and payable

out of the State, and legally protested for non-payment, is entitled, under secs. 8, 9, 10 of ch. 25 Dig., to interest at the rate of 10 per cent. on the amount specified

in the bill, but not to ten per cent. interest on the damages given by the act. A bill of exchange is payable at the place of residence of the drawee, unless some

other place of payment be stated.

Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court.

Hon. John C. MURRAY, Circuit Judge.

GARLAND & RANDOLPH, for appellant.

Faust for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice English delivered the opinion of the court.

Sarah Price brought assumpsit against Josua M. Craig, the drawer, upon a bill of exchange as follows:

“ LAKE VILLAGE, ARKS.,

April 16th, 1861. " $10,500.

At one day's sight pay to the order of Sarah Price, ten thousand five hundred dollars, being for her interest in the estate of Junius W. Craig, deceased, and charge to account of your ob't. serv't.

J. M. CRAIG." To Messrs, A. D. KELLY & Co.,

New Orleans, La." It is alleged in the declaration, that the bill was presented to the drawees for payment, on the 8th of May, 1861, and payment refused, but it is not alleged that the bill was, at any time, presented for acceptance; or shown to the drawees, before the day on which it was presented for payment.

On the trial, under the general issue, the plaintiff proved that the bill was presented for payment on the 8th of May, 1861, protested for non-payment, and the defendant duly notified; but no evidence was introduced to prove that on any previous day the bill had been presented for acceptance. The court sitting as a jury found for plaintiff, a motion for new trial was over

[blocks in formation]

ruled, and final judgment against defendant for the amount of the bill, interest, damages, etc., from which he appealed.

The bill was payable one day after sight. The presentment for payment on the 8th of May, and the protest for non-payment on that day were ineffectual for any legal purpose, unless the bill had been previously presented for acceptance, allowing one day for the bill to mature after it was shown to the drawees, and then three days of grace.

Upon all bills payable at sight, or at so many days after sight, or after any other event not absolutely fixed, or after demand, a presentment to the drawee for acceptance is absolutely necessary in order to fix the period when the bill is to be paid. This is sufficiently obvious in the cases of bills payable at so many days after sight, or after demand, or after a certain event. The like rule prevails in the French law. But it is equally true in our law, although not in the French law, as to bills payable at sight, which are not, in fact, payable on presentment; but which have the ordinary days of grace allowed them for payment, after presentment. But bills payable on demand (which are immediately payable on presentment) or payable at a certain number of days after date, or after any other certain event, need not be presented for acceptance at all, but only for payment. And here again the French law coincides with ours. However, in practice, whenever the hill is payable at a certain number of days after date, it is usual, and certainly is prudent to present it for acceptance. If presented the holder must conduct himself in the same way, and make protest and give notice in the same manner as he would upon a bill payable at so many days after sight. Story on Bills, (3 ed.) sec. 228.

The court rendered judgment for the amount of the bill, with ten per cent. interest and four per cent. damages, and upon the aggregate amount thus produced, gave interest at ten per cent. from the date of the judgment.

The bill was drawn in this State, upon Kelly & Co., of New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, and payable there, no other

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »