Case Name: State of Louisiana v. Wade Hampton, Collector, et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1859-07
Citations: 14 La. Ann. 725
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Louisiana v. Wade Hampton, Collector, et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
State of Louisiana v. Wade Hampton, Collector, et als.
When the record shows that the defendant appeared and defended the suit, by filing a peremptory exception, and taking bills of exception to the introduction of evidence, he cannot claim a reversal of the judgment rendered against him, on the ground that the record does not show that issue was joined by a judgment by default.
In an action against a defaulting 'fax Collector and the sureties on his bond, who are bound each for a specific sum, the case may be continued as to some of the defendants.
The principal and sureties on a Tax Collector’s bond cannot set up, by way of defence to an action brought on the bond, the fact that it had not been approvod, or received by the proper officer, and recorded, as provided by law.
from the District Court of the Parish of J.
M. A. Jones, for plaintiff. McGuire <& Hay, Morrison & Purvis and Harper & Bonner, for defendants and appellants.

Opinion:
Cole, J.
This is an action against Wade Hampton, who was Collector of the State and Internal Improvement taxes and licences due in the parish of Franklin, in 1854, and against his securities on his official bonds.
There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants have appealed.
1.It is not an objection, that a default is not mentioned in the record to have been taken against some of the defendants; for the bills of exception and a peremptory exception filed by all the defendants, show that they defended the suit.
2.It is objected that the Collector is charged @250 for insolvent and delinquent tax payers. Appellants are in error ; the judgment deducts this amount.
3.There is a bill of exceptions to tbe ruling of the court, permitting the plaintiff to continue the cause as to certain of the defendants.
The court did doI err, inasmuch as each of the securities was bound for a specific and separate amount, for which they were severally liable. Sess. Acts, 1855, p. 82, § 5 ; State v. Wm. Hampton, just decided.
4.The objections to the bond of Wacle Hampton, on the grounds that it had not been approved or received by the proper officers, and attested and recorded as provided by law, are invalid. The securities signed the bond, and Hampton acted under it in the collection of taxes. Neither the principal or securities can plead successfully such objections.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.