Oats v. . Darden
Supreme Court of North Carolina
>From Sampsom This was a motion made under the act of 1808, ch. 21, for judgment against the Defendant, for arrearages due from him as Sheriff for the years 1807 and 1808. Two questions were made : 1st. Whether the summary remedy given by that act applied to arrearages due before the passing of the act ? and, 2d. Whether this remedy could be enforced against a man whose Sheriffalty had expired.
1Opinion of the CourtIIaii, Judge
The policy of the Legislature in giving a summary remedy against sheriffs, is obvious. They considered that there was no necessity of going through all the forms of an ordinary suit, against a man who had in MS'hands public money. Where an individual sues another, delay is frequently necessary to prepare for .trial: but this is not the case with two persons, one acting as county trustee, the other as sheriff. As to the objection in this case, that the Defendant is out of office, there is no good reason to support it. The question is not, whether the Defendant now be sheriff, but was he…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Waddill v. . MastenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- McGlashan v. TallmadgeNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Johnson v. DixonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1861
- State v. . GantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- State v. GantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.