Case Name: John G. Lott, Guardian, plaintiff in error, vs. Joseph L. Dysart et al., defendants in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1872-01
Citations: 45 Ga. 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: John G. Lott, Guardian, plaintiff in error, vs. Joseph L. Dysart et al., defendants in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 355–363

Head Matter:
John G. Lott, Guardian, plaintiff in error, vs. Joseph L. Dysart et al., defendants in error.
1. Where, in a suit pending on a debt, dated before June 1, 1865, the plaintiff had filed the affidavit required by the Act of October 13, 1870, and on the trial failed to show that the taxes due upon the debt had been paid for a part of'the time since the debt was contracted, but proposed in open Court, then and there, to pay into Court for the use of the State the taxes still due :
Held, That it was error in the Court t,o deny him the right so to pay the full amount of taxes due. Such a payment would have been a substan tial compliance with the Act of Octobor 13, 1870, and the plaintiff would have been entitled to a judgment on his debt.
2. Where a note was given for land, to an administrator, and he turned the note over as assets to the guardian of the sole heir-at-law, the maker thereof giving the guardian a new note, with the administrator as security, this was not such a novation of the original debt for the land as that the note is not still a debt contracted for the purchase of the land.
Relief Act of 1870. Tax. Novation. Before Judge Parrott. Bartow Superior Court. September Term, 1871.
Martin Lott died intestate. Vincent administered upon his estate and sold Lott’s land to Dysart, and took his note, with security, for the purchase-money. Dysart was still in possession of the land. Savannah Lott was Martin Lott’s sole heir, and when Vincent settled with her he gave up Dysart’s said note and took from him Dysart’s other note, with Vincent as security, in lieu of the first note, and gave that to John G. Lott, Savannah Lott’s guardian, as part of the estate. This note was made in 1860. Lott, guardian, sued upon this note and suit was pending when the Relief Act of 13th October, 1870, was passed. Plaintiff filed an affidavit as to the payment of taxes on the debt, as required by said Act, within the time required. On the trial, plaintiff proved the payment of taxes for each year since the making of the contract, except two years. To cover this deficiency, plaintiff proposed to deposit with the Clerk of the Court a sum of money, for the use of the State, sufficient to cover the tax of said two years.
These facts being before the jury, defendant’s counsel contended that plaintiff' could not recover because of the nonpayment of taxes. Plaintiff’s counsel rejoined that the suit was for purchase-money of land, of which defendant was still in possession. The Court ruled that the second note was such a novation as to take the case out of that exception to the Relief Act. Plaintiff’s counsel stood also upon his offer to make said deposit with the Clerk to pay the taxes. But the Courtruled that that would not cure the non-payment of taxes. The jury found that the taxes had not been paid, as required by said Relief Act, and the case was dismissed. Said rulings are assigned as error.
H. P. Bell, for plaintiff in error,
A. Johnson, for defendant.

Opinion:
McCay, Judge.
1. As we have ruled very often this Act of October 13th, 1870, must, to be sustained at all, stand as an exercise of the power of the Legislature to enforce the payment, to the State, of the taxes legally due it. It is not for the benefit of the defendant. True, it works to his advantage, if the plaintiff fails to comply with it, as does the Act of Congress requiring notes, etc., to be stamped. But here the plaintiff had complied with that section of the Act requiring him to file his affidavit within the six months, and the only question before the jury was the right of the plaintiff to a verdict. This the Act says he shall not have, unless he makes it plainly appear to the jury that all legal taxes have been paid. He proposes to pay the tax into Court. Why should he not be permitted to do this? There is no dispute as to the amount. The face of the note determines that — and when paid into Court it is then for the benefit of the State. The State gets in this way its tax, the purpose of the law. The defendant is not hurt; it is none of his business. The refusal of the law to permit a judgment to go, is not for his benefit but to compel the plaintiff to do his duty, not to the defendant, but to the State. Were there any question as to the value of the note or debt, we should hesitate, since the proper officer to receive the return would be the revenue officers. But that question is not here. The Court is the State's guardian of its rights, and it may fairly be trusted to see to it that the money paid in goes to the proper custodian of it.
2. It would be pushing the law of novation very far to treat this change of papers as a novation. The original payee was only the agent of the minor, and sold the land as his agent. In turning over the debt to the guardian he is only performing the duties of his trust. It was originally payable to one agent of this minor; it is now made payable to another, the guardian. The change of payees was simply this, the substitution of one agent for another. In both cases the minor was the beneficiary. The debtor and creditor are the same in both cases. It is well settled that the taking a security, or change of one, is not a novation. This note was still for the land. We think, therefore, the Court was wrong in both these grounds, and reverse the judgment.
Judgment reversed.