Lemon v. Hay
This text of 1 Blackf. 227 (Lemon v. Hay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Judgment on motion in favour of Hay, treasurer of Clark county, against Lemon, late sheriff and collector of that county, and Carr, Hucklebury, and Cooper, his sureties, for failing to pay certain taxes due to the said county, by the said Lemon, as collector. The notice names Carr, Hucklebury, and Cooper as the sureties of Lemon, without stating in what manner they became sureties.
The act of assembly requires "that the collectors of taxes [228]*228should give bond with surety; and if Carr, Hucklebury, and Cooper were the sureties of Lemon, as collector, it was by bond executed agreeably to the provisions of the act of assembly. If such was the case, the bond which showed their liability to this motion, should have been set forth in the notice as fully as it should be in a declaration. See Dawson v. Shaver et at., decided at this term
The judgment is reversed, with costs.
Ante, p. 204. Stat. 1817, p. 291; — 1823, p. 122.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Blackf. 227, 1822 Ind. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemon-v-hay-ind-1822.