Davis v. . Commissioners of Stokes

The plaintiff moved the court to re-hear upon the ground in the first named case, that there was error in the judgment and decision aforesaid in this, that although the county of Stokes is not liable on the note, yet it is liable on the implied contract to repay the (375) money borrowed by Poindexter, to whose rights, on payment of the $500, the plaintiff, Davis, was subrogated pro tanto, which it received and appropriated to its own use, and that use held not to be an unlawful one."

That in the second case, "there was error in the judgment and decision aforesaid in this, that although the…