Southern Railway Co. v. Polk County

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Southern Railway Co. v. Polk County

44 S.E.2d 76, 227 N.C. 697, 1947 N.C. LEXIS 505

DecidedSeptember 24, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 44 S.E.2d 76 (Southern Railway Co. v. Polk County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Railway Co. v. Polk County, 44 S.E.2d 76, 227 N.C. 697, 1947 N.C. LEXIS 505 (N.C. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff paid to Max H. Feagan, who is botb Tax Collector and Treasurer of Polk County, certain taxes under protest, and later demanded their return. G. S., 105-267. The written demand was addressed to “Max IT. Feagan, Tax Collector,” without the appellation, “Treasurer.” It is clear that the tax was illegal and if the demand had been made on Feagan as Treasurer its return would have been proper, and required by law. The only question in the case is whether the demand addressed as stated, is a valid compliance with the statute.

Looking at the reality of the situation the Court is of the opinion that the demand actually brought to the attention of Feagan as Treasurer the demand and the information required by the statute in reasonable compliance with its purpose; and that neither law nor equity is satisfied by withholding the funds.

The judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff paid to Max H. Feagan, who is botb Tax Collector and Treasurer of Polk County, certain taxes under protest, and later demanded their return. G. S., 105-267. The written demand was addressed to “Max IT. Feagan, Tax Collector,” without the appellation, “Treasurer.” It is clear that the tax was illegal and if the demand had been made on Feagan as Treasurer its return would have been proper, and required by law. The only question in the case is whether the demand addressed as stated, is a valid compliance with the statute.

Looking at the reality of the situation the Court is of the opinion that the demand actually brought to the attention of Feagan as Treasurer the demand and the information required by the statute in reasonable compliance with its purpose; and that neither law nor equity is satisfied by withholding the funds.

The judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 S.E.2d 76, 227 N.C. 697, 1947 N.C. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-polk-county-nc-1947.