Ellicott v. Levy Court

1 H. & J. 359
General Court of Virginia·Decided October 15, 1802·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Chase, Ch. J.

In this case the court are not satisfied as to -the construction of the act of assembly; bat they are of opinion that a mandamus ought not to issue. The act of assembly directs the money to-be levied by a particular day — this is a special authority, and as the time has elapsed, the court think it would be improper to order the mandamus, as the levy court would have no authority under the law to make the levy. Even if the levy should be made, [361] find the collector should become insolvent, his securities would be discharged upon the same principle that the securities of the former collector, (Goldsmith,) were exonerated(a), and in that case the people of Anne Arundel county might be burthened a third time with the payment of the claim of Messrs. Ellicotts.

Mandamus Refused.

(a) Vide ante 36.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ellicott v. Levy Court, 1 H. & J. 359 (Va. Super. Ct. 1802).

1 H. & J. 359 (Ellicott v. Levy Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Board of County Commissioners v. Bolden
413 A.2d 190 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
State Tax Commission v. Armco Steed Corp.
174 A.2d 327 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1961)
Fisher v. City of Charleston
17 W. Va. 595 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1881)
Boone County Court v. Snyder
9 Ky. Op. 918 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1878)
Mottu v. Primrose
23 Md. 482 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1865)
Fish v. Weatherwax
2 Johns. Cas. 215 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)