Case ID: va_8/html/0755-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PENDEETON, President,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Halcomb v. Innis, Attorney General, &c.
    [November, 1799.]
    Commissioner — Proceedings before — Mistake—Relief.— A parly will be relieved against his own mistake, before the commissioner.
    Appellate Practice — Charges of Plaintiff with Taxes of Improper Year — Relief.—If it appears that the plaintiff was charged with the taxes of an improper year, the court of appeals will correct the mistake, although it was not insisted on either before the commissioner, or the court of chancery.
    Halcomb filed a bill in chancery, against the attorney general and others, stating that he had been sheriff and collector of the revenue and certificate taxes of Prince Edward county, for the years 1784, 178S: and that the solicitor general had obtained four judgments against him, viz. Two for the revenue and certificate taxes of 1784, and two for those of 178S. That the plaintiff has made payments nearly sufficient to discharge the judgments, if a mistake in one of the commissioner’s returns is corrected; and therefore the bill prayed an injunction and general relief.
    The answer of the auditor, annexes copies of the accounts from his books; and says he is ignorant of the supposed error.
    The court of chancery referred the accounts to a commissioner, who reported, that the plaintiff was appointed sheriff in October, and qualified in November 1783; at which time he gave bonds for the revenue and certificate taxes of 1783, 1784, being all that the law required for the two years of his sheriffalty; but that he had, in March 1785, given a bond for the certificate tax of that year also, and confessed in his bill, that he had collected for 1784, 1785. That the plaintiff is charged on the auditor’s books, as well with the certificate tax of 1783, (which he collected, and has paid,) as with the revenue and certificate taxes of 1784, 1785: and, as his successor is not debited with the certificate tax of 1785, it has either not been collected, or was collected by the plaintiff: who, not having explained the reason of giving the bond in March 1785, was to be charged with the certificate tax of that year, although he denied that he had ever collected it.
    *One of the justices of Prince Edward court says, that the plaintiff collected the certificate tax for two years only; and that he believes the bond in March 1785, was for that of 1784.
    The clerk of the court certifies, that there were two bonds given by the plaintiff’s successor, for the collection of the certificate taxes.
    The court of chancery dissolved the injunction, “as to the whole of the judgment for the certificate tax for the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five:” And Halcomb appealed to the court of appeals.
    Randolph, for the appellant.
    It is plain that the plaintiff only collected the taxes of two years; and therefore he ought not to have been charged with more.
    Brooke, attorney general, contra.
    The plaintiff knew best whether he collected the taxes of 1785; and, as he has stated that he did, he cannot now be permitted to deny it. If there had been any actual mistake, application should have been made to the court of chancery before the hearing of the cause, for leave to amend the bill; and as that was not done, the presumption is, that there was no mistake.
    Randolph, in reply. Courts will not suffer clients to be injured by the mistakes of their counsel; and therefore the omission to apply for leave to amend the bill and correct the error in the court of chancery, will not prejudice the appellant, who did not transact the business relative to the injunction, himself, but sent another person to do it for him, and that accounts for the mistake.
    Cur. adv. vult.
   PENDEETON, President,

delivered the resolution of the court as follows:

The appellant has collected and accounted for the taxes of two years, which were all that he was liable for by law. '^'The confusion has arisen from the auditor’s not distinguishing between the revenue and certificate tax, and charging the sheriff with the latter for the year 1783, when none was due. This error was adopted by the commissioner, and followed by the chancellor. The decree must therefore be reversed so far as relates to the mistake; and the following is to be the entry:

“The court is of opinion that there is no error in so much of the said decree as disallows interest, and dissolves the appellant’s injunction, as to thirty-four pounds six shillings and eight pence, the balance of the revenue tax of 1784; nor as makes it perpetual as to the residue of the judgments, except the certificate tax of 1785: But that there is error in so much as dissolves the injunction as to the certificate tax of 1785, the same having been fully accounted for and paid, but the collection and payments misapplied by taking into the account the year 1783, when none were or could be collected by the appellant, not being due by law. Therefore, It is decreed and ordered, that so much of the said decree, as is herein before stated to be erroneous, be reversed and annulled and that the residue thereof be affirmed; that the injunction, as to the certificate tax of 1785, be perpetual; and that the appellee pay to the appellant his costs by him expended in the prosecution of his appeal aforesaid here.” 
      
      The certificate tax was imposed in May 1782, to be collected after the 1st of March, following-. But the collection was postponed, in October 1782, until the succeeding August; and, in May 1783, it was further postponed, until the 1st of February, 1784.