Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1892-12-21
SOME lNPURrANT DECISIONS.

Counties Must Pay for Collecting State
Taxes Hampton Gets the Probate
Judgeship Of Logan Counsy-Mc.
L-od Wins Hts Subtitle Taxpayers'
Case Lost - Another judgment
Against Ex-SheriE Kinney and HIS !
BOndsmsa.
The Supreme Court has just de.
livesed a batch of opinions, some OF
which are of local Interest. We
therefore condense these from the
Statesman as follows:
In J. J. Guheen, assessor of Bing.
ham county VS.. the State Treasurer,
the Court holds that county assess,rs
are no. entitled to the payment OF
compensation for collecting state
moneys out Of state money; but that
they are entitled to compensation for
such service GU, Of the current ex-
pense fund Of their respective cou",i-s.
In Hampton VS.. Dilley, involving
the probate judgeship OF Logan
county. the Court DEGREES Hampton
entitled to the fees aud emoluments
Of the office for the two years from
January l, 1870; also. to damages
suffered by Hampton by reason Of his
deprivation OF said Office by the de-
PENDANT. Hampton was elected pro-
bate judge and qualified as such, but
after the passage Of the Alta-LincoIn
law, the commissioners of Logan
county appointed D'iley probate judge.
Hampton appealed 10 the district
court, which decided in favor of Dilley.
The appellant then carried the case to
the Supreme Court.
In the First National Bank of
Haley vs.. II. Bews ct al, suit was
Drought to recover upon q promissory
note of $4,000. The whole natter
hinged upon whether or not the de-
PENDANTS in their answer pleaded q
payment. The court below held that
they pleaded a counter claim and
judgment was rendered in favor OF
the defendants. The Supreme Court
reverses the judgment of the court
below aud orders new trial; costs OF
appeal awarded to appellant.
J. H. Van Ness vs.. George A. Nc
Leod, appellant, an action brought in
the Fourth district court upon two
promissory notes, judgment being
rendered there for the plaintiff. A
writ Of attachment, secured by one
Hode man, was served upon Mcleod
MS garni,h-e. Afterwards Van Ness
brought suit against Mcleod on the
two notes. Mcleod fled a motion.
supported by an affidavit, asking for
a su>pe nsion Of proceedings in the
latter suit until his liability as a earn-
i>hee in the attachment suit was de-
termined, alleging that the notes upon
| which he was sued were the property
Of Hodgman, and transferred to Van
Ness to defraud the formers creditors.
The motion was denied and judgment
render d for the plaintiff. TIE
Supreme Court reversed the Judgment
aud ordered the cause to be suspended
until the liability of Mcleod as q
garnlsh,e be determined.
|
appellants, VS.. w. Fl. Watt, an action
brought to restrain the defendant.
treasurer of Alturas county, from pay>
ing certain warrant, issued in pays
ment OF bills contracted By Alta
county, the judgment Of the court be.
low was affirmed. The Supreme
Court holds that the plaintiffs had ar
adequate remedy at law under the
, provisions OF section 1776, r S.
, In the case OF E. J. Robinson and
l. q. Emery, appellants, rs. P. H
: Kinney ct al, the judgment OF ths
court below was reversed. the Supreme
Court holding that sheriff upon sell
, ing property under an attachment
. must ut once thereafter turn over tc
the attaching parties the sum realized
less hi. fees.