Case ID: w-va_22/html/0314-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson, President :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLESTOWN.
    Board of Education of St. George District of Tucker County v. Parsons, Sheriff, et al.
    
    Submitted September 18, 1883
    Decided October 2, 1883.
    1. It is the purpose of a notice, on which to base a motion for judgment, to acquaint the defendant with the grounds, on which he is to -be proceeded against; and if it be so ]Dlain .that the defendant cannot mistake its object, it is sufficient, however wanting it may be in form and technical accuracy, (p. 311.)
    2. It is the duty of an ex-sheriff, who has in his hands moneys belonging to the board of education of a district in the county, upon ■ the demand of said board by an order, made and signed by its president and secretary, and delivered to him requiring him to pay such moneys to the present sheriff, and treasurer of the board, to pay the same upon such order, unless he has legal grounds for refusing to pay the same. (p. 313.)
    3. A motion may be made in the name of the board of education to . receive money of a sheriff and his sureties on his official bond, (p. 313.)
    The- facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    
      W. B. Maxwell for plaintiffs in error.
    
      A. B. Parsons for defendants in error.
   Johnson, President :

The Board of Education of St. George District of Tucker county gave notice to the defendant, "Ward Parsons, late sheriff of said county, and S. B. Wamsley and S. "W. Bowman, his sureties, of a motion to recover of them three hundred and seventy-nine dollars and eighty-six cents, belonging ■to the “building fund” of said board. The notice was served on the 29th day of April, 1882, and on the 11th day of May, 1882, the defendants appeared and moved the court to quash the notice, which motion the court sustained and quashed the notice, with costs. To this judgment the plaintiff obtained a writ of error.

The notice is in the same form and almost the exact words of the notice in the preceding case, which is there copied entire. The money sought to be recovered in that case was of the “teachers-fund” and in this of the “building fund.”, For the reasons stated in the opinion in the preceding case the judgment is reversed with costs, the motion to -quash overruled and the case remanded.

The Other Judges Conourred.

Judgment Reversed. Case Remanded.