TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

F. E. Winslow v. Henry Weith, Sheriff

F. E. Winslow v. . Henry Weith, Sheriff.

F. E. Winslow v. Weith, 66 N.C. 432 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1872
Judges
HodMaN
Citations
66 N.C. 432
Headnotes
The Superior Courts possess no jurisdiction in actions iu which u tort is waived and the sum received for property sold is sought to be recovered, if the amount demanded does not exceed $300.
Summary
This was a civil action tried at the Fall Term 1869, of Per-quimans Superior Court, before TIis Honor, Judge Pool, in complaint and demurrer. The complaint set forth in substance, that the defendant, under color of certain tax-lists, had exacted of the plaintiff’ illegally, taxes to the amount of $152, and that he had under said tax-lists, seized and sold property of the plaintiff for the price of $152. The plaintiff in his complaint, waived the tort, and sued in complaint for the price. His Honor sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — HodMaN

HodMaN, J.

This action, as it stands since the cofnplaiDfc was atnend'ed, is to recover $152, being an alleged illegal excess of taxes, which the plaintiff paid to the defendant as Sheriff, under protest. It is founded.; on an implied contract, and being far less than two hundred dollars, the Superior Court clearly had no jurisdiction, and the demurrer is sustained on that ground.

Judgment against the plaintiff for costs.

Feb CuRiAM.

Demurrer sustained.

The following note is added by order of the Court:

The counsel by whom the above case was argued, treated it as necessarily requiring an expression of the opinion of the Court, as to the taxing power ®f the Legislature under the Constitution, and the Court supposing that it did, kept it *433 under advisement for several terms, lor the purpose of considering the veri-novel, difficult and important questions involved. Upon examining the recorfl however, it was discovered that the case was not properly in Court, and that the-supposed question did not arise, and as the Court had ¡no desire to express any' opinion on questions of such a character unnecessarily, it abstained from doing so. While, however, it was supposed that it would be necessary, Judge Rod-man prepared arid submitted to his associates, for consideration, a view-of. the ■ questions, which the Court desired to be printed in an appendix to. the reports - of this term. The opinions and arguments therein are not considered as conclusive even in the judgment of the author, and of course as not indicating in -. anyway the opinions-of the other Justices. The publication is thought justified by the novelty, difficulty, and great public importance ol the- questions • discussed, and is made witn the hope that the bar, upon whose honest aid the - Court always relies, will, iu case they should hereaiter be presented for discussion, be prepared to aid the Conrtin meeting them-advisedly. The-most serious-difficulties it will be seen, are not visible at the first glance; -.they lie-beneath the - ¡-urface. The paper referred to will be found in .the appendix-..

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1875–1876: 11879–1880: 11881–1882: 11883–1884: 11889–1890: 21907–1908: 11915–1916: 11919–1920: 418752026peak 1919 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moose v. Board of Commissioners90 S.E. 441 (N.C. 1916)
  2. Southern Railway Co. v. Cherokee County97 S.E. 758 (N.C. 1919)
  3. Evans v. Commissioners of Cumberland89 N.C. 154 (1883)
  4. Bowers v. Richmond & Danville Railroad12 S.E. 452 (N.C. 1890)
  5. Womble v. Leach83 N.C. 84 (1880)
  6. R. R. v. Cherokee County97 S.E. 758 (N.C. 1919)

Most recent

  1. R. R. v. Comrs.101 S.E. 91 (N.C. 1919)
  2. Director-General of Railroads and Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Commissioners of Bladen County178 N.C. 449 (1919)
  3. R. R. v. Cherokee County97 S.E. 758 (N.C. 1919)
  4. Southern Railway Co. v. Cherokee County97 S.E. 758 (N.C. 1919)
  5. Moose v. Board of Commissioners90 S.E. 441 (N.C. 1916)
  6. Manning v. Fountain60 S.E. 645 (N.C. 1908)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list