Case Name: ANDREW LOVE vs. JACOB RAMSOUR
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1851-08
Citations: 12 Ired. 328
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANDREW LOVE vs. JACOB RAMSOUR.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
ANDREW LOVE vs. JACOB RAMSOUR.
The Act of Assembly, requiring the payment of certain moneys by the county of Lincoln to the county of Gaston, (referred to in Love v Schcnclc, ante p. 304) applies only to such persons as had thefund, or a part of it, in hand at the passing of the Act, or might have it afterwards. It does not charge one, through whose hands the money had merely passed, and from whom it had been taken by the Court before the enactment of the Statute.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Mecklenburg County, Spring Term, 1849, his Honor Judge Ellis presiding.
This case is similar to that or Love v Schenck, decided at this Term, except that the defendant was appointed County Trustee for Lincoln County, in March, 1846, and in the summer after, the sheriff of the county, by order of the County Court, paid to the defendant the sum of $1200-, which he then had of the fund, raised since March, 1842, for the purpose of building a Court House and Jail in Lincoln; and except further, that on or before the 1st of September, 1846, the defendant, by order of the County Court, disbursed the whole of that sum in the payment of debts of Lincoln county, then including what is now Gaston county. After demand made, the plaintiff -brought this suit in the Spring of 1848, for $800. There was judgment for the defendant on the case agreed, and the plaintiff appealed.
Craig and Lander for the plaintiff.
Guión and Thompson, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Ruffin, C. J.
The judgment must be affirmed. The act gives an action against " the treasurer of public buildings or such officer of Lincoln as may have the lima in charge and it appears that the defen bnt was neither the one nor the other. The act only applies to such persons as had the fund, or a part of it, in hand at the .passing of the act, or might have it afterwards. It could not charge the defendant upon the ground merely, that the money had passed through-his hands and been taken from him by the Court before the enactment of the statute.
Per Curiam. ' Judgment affirmed.