Vest v. . Cooper

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Vest v. . Cooper

75 N.C. 519

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 N.C. 519 (Vest v. . Cooper) 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

Vest v. . Cooper, 75 N.C. 519 (N.C. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

PearsoN, C. J.

1. We concur in the view taken by the accountant, and sustained by his Honor — that as Piercy was in default by reason of not collecting and paying over the taxes, as prescribed by law, he was to be charged with the tax list, and that the burthen of discharge was on him. The defendants’ exception respecting this question is oyer-ruled.

2. We are of opinion that when an accountant sets out in his account that the defendant is entitled to discharge for certain amounts, he is to be taken as finding the facts necessary to support the item of discharge. For illustration, when the accountant enters an item of discharge, “ Amount paid J. W. C. Piercy, $2,817.77,” he finds the fact that Piercy had discharged his liability to that amount. So the item, “ Insolvents for 1868, $285,” is a finding of the fact that the tax list was to be credited with that sum on the ground that in point of fact it had been proven that the insolvents took off that amount from the tax list. So as to the other items, the exceptions in these respects are overruled.

But the account is imperfect and unsatisfactory in respect *522 to the State tax. Hundsa paid the State tax, $988, to the Public Treasurer and took his receipt in the usual form for that sum paid by the sheriff. This is the exhibit marked B, which is not among the papers, but that seems to be immaterial, for the question was, What part of this sum was paid by Piercy ? This fact ought to have been found by the accountant, and in the absence of such finding, either directly or by giving eredit by way of discharge for “ amount paid by Piercy in part of State tax,” we are not able to dispose of the ease.

So we see from the statement of the accountant that he gives credit for commissions on collections $545.72, $27.28, but he does not give any credit for commissions on the amount $2,817.77 paid by Piercy to the County Treasurer. The reason for failing to allow these commissions and the facts on which the accountant acted, are not found.

The case will be remanded, to the end that the accountant find the facts in these particulars and that his Honor may then proceed with the case agreeable to law.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.

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

PearsoN, C. J.

1. We concur in the view taken by the accountant, and sustained by his Honor — that as Piercy was in default by reason of not collecting and paying over the taxes, as prescribed by law, he was to be charged with the tax list, and that the burthen of discharge was on him. The defendants’ exception respecting this question is oyer-ruled.

2. We are of opinion that when an accountant sets out in his account that the defendant is entitled to discharge for certain amounts, he is to be taken as finding the facts necessary to support the item of discharge. For illustration, when the accountant enters an item of discharge, “ Amount paid J. W. C. Piercy, $2,817.77,” he finds the fact that Piercy had discharged his liability to that amount. So the item, “ Insolvents for 1868, $285,” is a finding of the fact that the tax list was to be credited with that sum on the ground that in point of fact it had been proven that the insolvents took off that amount from the tax list. So as to the other items, the exceptions in these respects are overruled.

But the account is imperfect and unsatisfactory in respect *522 to the State tax. Hundsa paid the State tax, $988, to the Public Treasurer and took his receipt in the usual form for that sum paid by the sheriff. This is the exhibit marked B, which is not among the papers, but that seems to be immaterial, for the question was, What part of this sum was paid by Piercy ? This fact ought to have been found by the accountant, and in the absence of such finding, either directly or by giving eredit by way of discharge for “ amount paid by Piercy in part of State tax,” we are not able to dispose of the ease.

So we see from the statement of the accountant that he gives credit for commissions on collections $545.72, $27.28, but he does not give any credit for commissions on the amount $2,817.77 paid by Piercy to the County Treasurer. The reason for failing to allow these commissions and the facts on which the accountant acted, are not found.

The case will be remanded, to the end that the accountant find the facts in these particulars and that his Honor may then proceed with the case agreeable to law.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 N.C. 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vest-v-cooper-nc-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack