Rogers v. Marlboro County
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Norton, J., Marlboro, June, 1889. The case is fully stated by Mr. Justice McGowan in bis dissenting opinion as follows: “This is an appeal from the decision of the county commissioners of Marlboro, refusing to audit as a county claim an account of the sheriff of the said county (B. A. Rogers) for costs, which he claimed the county was liable for to him.
Read the full summary
Before Norton, J., Marlboro, June, 1889. The case is fully stated by Mr. Justice McGowan in bis dissenting opinion as follows: “This is an appeal from the decision of the county commissioners of Marlboro, refusing to audit as a county claim an account of the sheriff of the said county (B. A. Rogers) for costs, which he claimed the county was liable for to him. The case arose in this way: The auditor of the county returned to the treasurer the names of 260 poll tax defaulters, by authority of the following instructions from the comptroller general, viz.: ‘In cases where parties are charged…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McIver.
' It seems to me very clear that the warrants which constitute the basis of the plaintiff’s claim cannot properly be regarded as process for the collection of taxes, and hence section 172 of General Statutes has no application to the case. These warrants were not issued for the purpose of enforcing the payment of the poll taxes, but, on the contrary, for the purpose of punishing the delinquent taxpayer for failure to perform a high public duty — the performance of which is absolutely essential to the administration of the government.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rutter v. Territory of OklahomaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1902
- Goldsmith v. McAnallySupreme Court of Colorado · 1933