County of Lewis v. Tate
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Lewis Circuit Court., The first instruction asked by defendant below, should have been given: because there is no evidence, even tending to show a promise by defendant to plaintiff. The second instruction of defendant should also have been given. The evidence showed the jury might find those facts, and from them the law would not raise a promise to pay. The third and fourth instructions of defendant, are in substance the same, and should have been given.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Lewis Circuit Court., The first instruction asked by defendant below, should have been given: because there is no evidence, even tending to show a promise by defendant to plaintiff. The second instruction of defendant should also have been given. The evidence showed the jury might find those facts, and from them the law would not raise a promise to pay. The third and fourth instructions of defendant, are in substance the same, and should have been given. A demand before suit is certainly necessary. Elliott vs. Swartwout, 10 Peters Rep., -137; Leighs Nisi Prins, title, money had and…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
Tate brought an action of assumpsit against Lewis county, under the following circumstances. The revenue law of 1842 — 3, authorized an increase of tax from 1-8 to 1-6 per cent, on the assessed value of property, but not to take effect until 1844. The assessor of Lewis county, under the belief that the law was then in force, assessed the revenue for 1843 at one-sixth of one per cent, and returned his tax book to the County Court. This Court having corrected the tax boob, as by law they were directed to do, and having levied the county tax at 100 per cent upon the State tax, caused the tax…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- La Farge v. KneelandNew York Supreme Court · 1827
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kleban v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- State ex rel. Rice v. PowellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869