The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1876-01-21
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
Cases Decided Monday, Jan'y II.
PREPARED FOR THE CLARION BY FRANK
JOHNSTON, esq.
John Id. Reinhard, Admir-, VS..
II. Hines.

John I'D. Kein hard, Admir-, v
u. Hines.
Opinion of the Court By SIMRALL, j.
Suit was brought on an account stated dI
by Reinhard's testator to Hines. Defen,
ant pleaded non dSSunpSit, the three year
statute of limitations, and payment TT
question was, whether the account was 8
account stated" Or'an ordinary accoul
governed by the three years limitation
The evidence showed that the defendant d,
MED the validity of most of the items {
the account, and never agreed to the ba
ance as struck by the plaintiff. More tina
! three years had elapsed between the date {
the account and the issuance of the wri
excluding the nine months after the al
pointmeno Of the personal representativ,
within which suit could not have bee
brought. Held:
|. An account stated is one where tin
parties consider the claim and by express
agreement strike balance, after which th
vouchers may be destroyed, and the balanc
cannot be disputed. 1t is an agreemen
that the balance Is true, and striking tn,
balance is the consideration of the promise
Such an agreement is not shown in this
case.
Ii. The account sued on was not an sac
count stated" within the rule above stated
aud was governed by the statute of limita-
ton of three years, and barred at the com
mencement of the suit
Ill. Where an account stated is sued
Oh, 1t is not necessary TO prove the correct
ness OF the items, for the action is based on
the special contract of the defendant bv
Which the balance is ascertained. Reueys ed
and renlQnded.
e. Autfae, .sr., VS.. Il. e. Everett.
Opinion of the Court By PEYToN. Gu. J.
-, This was suit by Everett against futile
Lax Collector of Carroll county, to recover
Il tax OF S73 81 Illegally assessed AGAINST
ldlhtlH The tax was levied for a suh-
ScrlptlOn to railroad company that had
not been legally voted by the electors of the
county me question of the legality of
Ine eiectlon was decided in Hawkins VS.
BOARD OF Supervisors of Carroll CO., so Miss
Inc taxpayer did not pay under protest
an lG was insisted by Plaintiff i'm Errnr
mar as the payment was voluntary no action
AK. Held. u VIC
|. The rule is, where the property is nron-
'rly taxable, and the tax itselfis legal and
mere Is merely an irregularity in the levy
II MODE OF collection of the tax. if the nav
hent Is voluntarily made, the amount maid
annot De recovered from the Tax CoiIec-
or. 800 UNIV
III. But where the assessment and 1au,,
I the tax are illegal and void, the taU ny |
e recovered from the Tax Collector willis |
nc same IS IN his hands, although the nav
lo"C Is voluntary. After the money hos
cen pald over by the Tax Collector the ar9
on must be against the corporation.
- ~. Inc tax in this case was ILLEGAL and
olu, anu the action was maintainahie
affirmed.
Aerr and NEcAfee US. Moor.
lP"a'on OF the Court, BY TARBELL T
o4it was commenced before ,Trstioo -,
err e az NJ, III the name of John A. Cook, by
b ot "Hu dcAlee MS agents against Moore ,
rcd hr + Vas lor agricultural supplies Sc
r lieu ny the statutory lien, and was as
: uee IN writing by Cook to Kerr and
On appeal in the Circuit Court this Co., a
- -, smlssed, because the legal title 70 fho
' : IA c was not IN the plaintiffs Kerr and c
Enable. Held, '' was not as
L ~ nus Us claim was assignable in writino \
al t,i1 lHSal Cltle passed to the assipnaas
o l'It, 1911 oec. 670) The Circuit CnTrt
I ban nave permitted the suit to procead -
ner IN the names of the assioneac or :; .
, '"nie Vi Look for their use. Rerproad =
"A Shinn VS.. The State. ;,
I ;; Of the Court, BY TARBELL, J. Of
a" "inC III IN error was convicted of an So
Go. WIN TN attempt TO kill. On tho tr;.i
o b asked the prisoner if he had con iai l.
icpileu tnat he had no mona. L
an COu .,i lie was then asked if he IL
witnesses, and the replv wao -
lad one important witness W. iy was Illat G,
put did not ask for process so as a aI -
,.,S ahu uld not ask to have oonnoal Ch0
80 20 4 tLih oy the court. Held. |. Tbo fa a1
ia VI me court to assign counsel 70 az NJ
bont "a " order process for the witness NJ
cient nequest of the prisoner. are not an
#. a 6r noa1os for disturbing the Judo
h xx.u CHI
Vaiiace and others W. V, Jo
State. no,
P"'.om % the Court By TARBELL T
an,, ms ~ q IN error were convicted Of ~ ma
49, VI iour bales of cotton. Tho rno erg Hu
' ge1l no proof of the value of the on.
nro mas necessary to prove the valuo 90 Of,
this CO, Tue subject of the larcann roo
" VI us value, in the absence ~ pte;sGump-
- point. ReUersed and rena0nded ''ehce Ste
McGraw vs.. sohnsto. Or!
O'''0" OF the Court By TARBE11. T Me-
he a TO Dismiss the appeal ON the orona
orr pdpe a was granted from an ;o otiiu I
OJ decree by the Clerk IL al inter By
w. uenled on the ground that a tL Ii
MOI nos i1terlocutory, but a final a1 d de job
O'''" "ehaed. o1 Ces
Ned Hart Va. The Stat, NJ
mao" Of the Court by TARBEn1 T e.
lntIf in error was oon. no,
II ffic; Tue ground that the eyjdenoaa lar NJ
lent W. 10 warrant a convict;o,o was Sout
'oOeTSed, and cause ro,,a..1 Sne lin.
Jordan VS.. MoIIie
rmed as a DELAY oo.. moore. A