Case ID: ga_45/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      McCay, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John D. Collins, plaintiff in error, vs. E. M. Richardson et al., defendants in error.
    1. It is unnecessary to file the affidavit of taxes paid, as required by the Act of October 15, 1870, in an action for false representations of the solvency of one whom the plaintiff was thereby induced to credit, and in consequence of which it was alleged the plaintiff had lost this debt.
    2. If a case be called and dismissed for want of prosecution, and before the next case is called, counsel for plaintiff in error appear and ask that the case be heard, and the order of dismissal be not taken, the case will be heard. (R. See end of Report.)
    Relief Act of 1870. Tax. Practice. Supreme Court. Before Judge Harvey. Polk Superior Court. August Term, 1871.
    Collins averred that in February, 1865, he was engaged as a teacher in Woodland Female College, at Cedartown, Georgia, and hearing some complaint about the pecuniary condition of the college, called on Richardson et al., trustees of the college for an exhibit of the financial condition of the college, which they refused to make, but wrote him not to fear, that the assets of the college were ample to meet its liabilities, and he, relying upon this, taught one year, and could not get pay because the college was insolvent. Averring that their representations were fraudulently made, he prayed a judgment against them for his said services. Because he filed no affidavit as to the payment of taxes, the Court dismissed the cáse. That is assigned as error.
    (When the case was called, it was dismissed for want of prosecution, but before the order was taken or another case was called, counsel for plaintiff in error came in and asked that the case be heard, and it was allowed.)
    E. N. Broyles, for plaintiff in error.
    J. F. Thompson, by J. W. H. Underwood, for defendants.
   McCay, Judge.

As against this defendant, this cause of action was not taxable property. It was a tort. It had no fixed value. It was not a contract. The very point of it is the wrong, the deceit. The debt as against the corporation is not in suit in this action. The plaintiff may or may not have given in and paid the taxes on that. This cause of action is the deceit, the fraud practiced, as is alleged, on the plaintiff. We do not think any man ever has thought such causes of action not based, even on contract, but standing as much on tort, as slander, are taxable.

Judgment reversed.