Thompson v. Stickney
Supreme Court of Alabama
EuRoit to the Circuit Court of Mobile, This was a motion, by the county treasurer against the clerk of the county court, for moneys of the county alleged to be in his hands.
Read the full summary
EuRoit to the Circuit Court of Mobile, This was a motion, by the county treasurer against the clerk of the county court, for moneys of the county alleged to be in his hands. The following facts were agreed It is admitted, that the defendant, as clerk of the county court of Mobile, after the passage of the general revenue law in February last, issued fifty-three licenses to persons, of the eo,unty of Mobile,, at thirty dollars each, which was done according- to. the [aw ex-, igting before the passage of that act, and under an assessment made in writing by the judge of the county court, and…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
It is a general rule of law, that an agent, acting for a known principal, and receiving money in that character, is not individually responsible if the money has been paid over to his principal without notice. That revenue officers or tax collectors form no exception to this rule, is shown by the case of Greenway v. Hurd, [4 Term, 553.]
As it respects the fifty-three licenses, issued after the passage of the revenue law of February, 1843, the proposition above stated has no application. The revenue act of February, 1843, had declared that the licenses which the county clerk issued, should be a…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Boring v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Wheeling v. BlackWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Perryman v. City of GreenvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Upchurch v. NorsworthySupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Cassimus v. Vaughn Realty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.