Case Name: Board of Supervisors of Nottoway County v. Powell
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1907-03-21
Citations: 106 Va. 751
Docket Number: 
Parties: Board of Supervisors of Nottoway County v. Powell.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 751–763

Head Matter:
Richmond.
Board of Supervisors of Nottoway County v. Powell.
March 21, 1907.
1. Equity—Bill to Correct Treasurer’s Account—Discovery—Surcharge and Falsification.—A bill filed by a board of supervisors of a county against a county treasurer charging that he had made certain settlements with the board which were erroneous, and pointing out the errors complained of by reason of which he had failed to account for funds due the county from delinquent taxes, and had charged a greater commission on certain funds than the law allows, and praying for a reference to a commissioner to settle the accounts of the treasurer, and that he be required to produce before such commissioner his books and papers to enable him properly to state the accounts, and that he be required to pay the amount found due by him, and for general relief, is in no sense a bill of discovery, but a bill to surcharge and falsify the accounts of the treasurer, and is subject to the rule governing such bills which requires the specific grounds of surcharge and falsification to be stated in the bill.
2. County Treasurers—Delinquent Taxes—Credits to Treasurer—Accounting—Suit 5y Board of Supervisors.—A county treasurer is not entitled to receive credit by any delinquent taxes until and unless the original tickets for such taxes have been filed with the clerk of the court. When a proper list is filed the treasurer is liable for all moneys received by him on tax tickets contained in such lists. The board of supervisors of the county may maintain a bill in equity and have a reference to a commissioner in chancery with regard to such tickets and collections, and hold the treasurer responsible, to the extent of the county’s interest therein, for all such tickets as were actually collected by him.
3. County Treasurers—Delinquent Taxes—Default of Treasurer—Suit by Board of Supervisors.—Section 612 and cognate sections of the Code (1904) providing for the collection of delinquent taxes from taxpayers, apply only to cases in which the lists have been returned by the treasurer in good faith in conformity to law, and afford no remedy against a treasurer who has ex maleficio collected tax tickets in the delinquent lists. The hoard of supervisors can alone hold a treasurer responsible for such derelictions of duty so far as the county levy is concerned. These statutes afford remedies against delinquent taxpayers and their property, but none against a defaulting treasurer.
4. County Treasurers—Excessive Charges—Remedy at Law.—If the only claim of a board of supervisors against a county treasurer, is for an excess .of commissions' retained by him, the remedy is at law, and not in equity.
Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Prince Edward county. Erom a decree dismissing the bill on demurrer the complainant appeals.
Reversed.
The opinion states the case.
H. E. Lee and Caskie & Coleman, for the appellant.
Meade Haskins and C. V. Meredith, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Whittle, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The court concurs in the dissenting opinion of the President, to he handed down in this case, except with respect to the charges of the hill involving the alleged failure of the defendant in error, J. L.- Powell, as treasurer of ETottoway county, to- return with his delinquent lists the original, tax tickets for each and all the items embraced therein, and to account for subsequent collections alleged to have been made by him on tax tickets included in such lists.
We are of opinion that the treasurer was not entitled to receive credit by any delinquent taxes until and unless the original tax tickets for such taxes were filed with the clerk; and also that he is liable for all moneys received by him on tax tickets contained in the delinquent lists. We are further of opinion that the plaintiff in error, the Board of Supervisors of ETotto way county, is entitled to maintain the bill in this aspect of the case, and, upon the exhibits filed therewith, to have a reference to a commissioner in chancery with regard to such tickets and collections, and to hold the treasurer responsible, to the extent of the county's interest therein, for all such tickets as were actually collected by him.
We are further of opinion that section 612, Virginia Code (1904), and cognate sections, providing for the collection of delinquent taxes from taxpayers, apply only to cases in which the lists have been returned by the treasurer in good faith in conformity to law, and that they afford no remedy against a treasurer who has ex maleficio collected tax tickets included in the delinquent lists. The Board of Supervisors can alone hold a treasurer responsible for such derelictions of duty so far as the county levy is concerned. The statutes invoked have no application to such case—they afford remedies against delinquent taxpayers and their property, but none against a defaulting treasurer.
Por these reasons the decree sustaining the demurrer .and dismissing the bill must be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings to be had therein not in conflict with the views herein expressed.