Range Co. v. . Cozart

24 S.E. 356, 118 N.C. 342
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1896·Published

Opinion

This case is governed by the opinion in the above case againstCarver. But it does not appear that any claim for county tax is involved; and as the defendant was restrained and enjoined by the order below from collecting the State tax imposed by (343) section 28, chapter 116, Laws 1895, the order was erroneous and should not have been granted. There is error, and the judgment is

Reversed. *Page 210

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

Range Co. v. . Cozart, 24 S.E. 356, 118 N.C. 342 (N.C. 1896).

24 S.E. 356 (Range Co. v. . Cozart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.