Case Name: The State of Georgia, plaintiff in error, vs. J. J. Bradford, sheriff, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1871-07
Citations: 44 Ga. 417
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Georgia, plaintiff in error, vs. J. J. Bradford, sheriff, defendant in error.
Judges: Lochrane, Chief Justice, concurred, but furnished no opinion.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 417–420

Head Matter:
The State of Georgia, plaintiff in error, vs. J. J. Bradford, sheriff, defendant in error.
Where a sheriff, in answer to a rule calling upon him to show cause why he had not made the money on a ji.fa. issued by the Comptroller General against a defaulting tax collector, showed, for cause, that the defendant had no property on which to levy they?, fa., and in a traverse of the return it appeared that the defendant was in possession of a tract of land which had been set apart as a homestead for the benefit of his wife and family:
Held, that there was no error in the Court in refusing, under the circumstances, to make this rule absolute, as the sheriff appears to have acted in good faith, and the property was real estate :
Held, also, that it was the duty of the Court to have directed the sheriff, by order, to levy upon the property, that the parties may have an opportunity of testing, before the Courts, whether the homestead so set apart, is or is not subject to an execution by the Comptroller General against a defaulting tax collector. Warner, Judge, dissenting.
Tax. Homestead. Buie against Sheriff. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. January, 1871.
This was a rule against Bradford, sheriff,. The cause was submitted to the Court upon the following agreed statement of the facts:
On the 1st of June, 1869, the Comptroller General of Georgia issued an execution against one Brooks, a tax collector, and his securities for $5,100 00 taxes due said State. On the 10th of Janury, 1870, this execution was handed to Bradford for collection out of Brooks, the Governor having suspended proceedings against the securities. The sheriff did not make the money, and to a rule against him answered that Brooks had no property subject to said fi. fa. The answer was traversed by averring that Brooks owned certain lots described in the traverse, worth $2,500 00. Issue was joined upon the traverse. But counsel agreed that when said execution was issued Brooks owned said land in fee simple, but on the 21st of August, 1869, said land was, by the Ordinary of said county, set apart to the wife of Brooks under the Homestead Act. It was submitted whether this land was subject to said fi. fa. The Court held it was not subject and discharged the rule against the sheriff. That is assigned as error.
C. J. Thornton, Solicitor General for the State, said the fi. fa. was for taxes, and therefore the homestead was subject.
Blanford & Thornton for defendant.

Opinion:
McCay, Judge.
1. We think it would be a harsh judgment against the sheriff to hold him liable to a rule absolute in this case. He has acted in good faith and he has done no harm, except to compel by his conduct the plaintiff to ask the direction of the Court in this a very doubtful matter. He is made a trespasser if he levies upon a homestead. It is admitted that there is a homestead in this case; but it is contended that the homestead is exempt for taxes, and that this fi. fa. is for taxes. Because the sheriff refused to decide so nice a question as this it seems to us that it would be very harsh to hold him liable.
We are not, ourselves, prepared to say that this property is liable. It is an open question, and one that the parties have a right to make. The fi. fa. is for the default of a tax collector in settling with the Comptroller General, and it is going pretty far to say that this is taxes, in the sense of the exception to the Constitution. We do not, however, decide this question. We simply say that, in our judgment, in so doubtful a case, the sheriff, in the case of real estate, may well await the order and direction of the Court.
2. We think the Court should direct the levy to be made. Let the parties claim the property, and make the question.
Lochrane, Chief Justice, concurred, but furnished no opinion.