Ellicott v. Levy Court

General Court of Virginia

Ellicott v. Levy Court

1 H. & J. 359

CourtGeneral Court of Virginia

DecidedOctober 15, 1802

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1 H. & J. 359 (Ellicott v. Levy Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering General Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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]*361find 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

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]*361find 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 H. & J. 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellicott-v-levy-court-vagensess-1802.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack