The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-05-03

ute making the claim referred to a
preferred debt applies only to the
territorial limits of the law-malIing
state except in 50 far as it may apply
through the principle of comfy.
Parks US. Robinson, from Mecklen-
burg, affirmed:
Where q testator devised his prop
erty to his wife during the term of
her natural life and at her disposal all
the rest residue and remainder of my
real and personal estate;" Held, that
the words "at her disposal were not a
limitation upon the wife to the ordi-
nary powers conveyed by a life estate,
but invested her with the power to
convey the real property in fee, for the
purposes of the trust implied in the
devise.
TCeter VS.. Wallace (Sheriff) from
Mecklenburg; no error.
Plaintiff was taxed by sheriff as a
horse trader and refused payment on
the ground that he was not liable I'M
der section 1875, chapter BAT. Acts of
1903, whereupon defendant levied on
one mule belonging TO plaintiff.
Plaintiff thereupon paid over to de-
PENDANT $25 and took a receipt from
him as follows: Received of M. F..
Teeter $25. This money is left with
me for the following purposes: /, as
sheriff of Mecklenburg. have levied on
one mule of the said M. f. Teeter for
tax known as the license tax for
selling horses, etc, and the said NJ. e.
Teeter pays this money under protest,
reservine the right to test by law the
validity of my requiring him to pay
this tax. n. w. Wallace, sheriff"
The mule was returned to the plaintiff
who brought suit against the sheriff
for the amount of the tax. Offering
testimony tending to show that he was
not liable therefor. 1t was admitted
that the defendant had paid over the
$25 to the state Treasurer. Defend
ant dennurred to the evidence and the
court being of opinion that plaintiff
could net recover sustained the de-
murrer and plaintiff appealed.
Held, that the procedure establish
ed by section so, chapter 558, Acts of
1901 for the recovery of any tax or
part thereof wrOngfully collected by
a sheriff. whereby the person aggriev
ed may at any time within thirty days
after the payment of such tax make
written demand therefor of the State
Treasurer, if the same be a State tax,
and il the same be not refunded, may
bring suit against the county in which
said eaX was collected within ninety
GAYS, is mandatory; the plaintiff, not
having complied with the provisions
Of the statute, cannot recover, the
common law practice of bringing suit
against the sheriff having been abro-
gated by such statute.
Second That the receipt given was
not a promise by the sheriff to hold
the money until the controversy as TO
his liability was ended, but the pa
per was merely given TO save the
rights of the plaintiff and as evidence
of his protest against liability for the
tax and OF his purpose to contest the
same not with the sheriff, but in the
manner provided by law.
Piedmont Savings Bank, Trustee VS..
levy, from SurTy; new trial.
Plaintiff was trustee in bankruptcy
of N V. Young and Company ana ac-
ton was to set aside q. sale made to
defendant by the bankrupt shortly be-
fore the date of the failure, the allie
cation being that such sale was made
for the purpose of hindering. delay
ing and defrauding the creditors of
said bankrupt OF several issues pre-
scented to the jury two in question
we're: First WAS the conveyance
of the stock of goods from Young q
Company to Levy. made with the in
tent and purpose on their part or that
Of either of them to hinder, delay or
defraud the creditors, or any OF them!
End Did the defendant purchase in
good faith and without knowledge or
notice of such fraudulent intent on the
part of Young & Co., or either or
them"
The Jury answered both issues Eyes
and plaintiff appealed. On the trial
one Stone, a clerk of Young & Co.,
and really interested in the business,
was permitted by the judge TO testify
for the plaintiff as to the first issue,
but not as to the second, although
such evidence tended to show conspir-
acy to defraud on the part of vendors
1oII hot q
refusal to permit Stones testimony as
to the second issue was error and or
dered a new trial, also setting forth
in the opinion that on a new trial the
second issue given above should in
clude Q query as to whether the price
paid for the goods was fall and fair.
LafOon VS. Keerner, from Eorsythe;
new trial.
Plaintiff had obtained magistrates
Judgment against defendant for 5000
and one j. NJ Greenfield became sure
ly on appeal bond and in the usual
form agreed to pay any judgment THAI
might be affirmed against the defend
ant. Shortly afterwards defendant
went into bankruptcy. Plaintiff did
not prove claim, but relied upon judg-
ment and surety. Defendant plead
bankruptcy.
Held, That plaintiffs claim not fall
ing under any of the exceptions of the
bankruptcy law, his proper remedy
was to have proved his claim before
the referee and that he acuired no
right of execution against the estate
by reason of the prior judgment; also
that the bond of surety being given OH
the contingency of recovery, since the
claim of the plaintiff could not be sus-
tanned by judgment, the surety was re-
leased.
In re P NJ. Norris, deceased, from
Cabarrus; affirmed
This was a case to test the consti-
nationality of the inheritance tax,
brought by one of the daughters of
the deceased, alleging Irregularities in
the provisions of the law whereby she
suffered out of proportion to other
legatees who received real estate and
on the ground that her legacy of 49,
000 was impaired by the tax.
The tax was sustained as constitu-
tional and as being in conformity with
the principle of taxation on inherit
anceS for many years in various coun-
tries and jurisdictions.
In the case of State VS. Hough. a
new trial was granted the defendant.
The case came from Cabarrus.
McGinn vs.. Bankers Union, from
CASTOR, per curiam, affirmed.
Cfowell VS.. Insurance Co, from