Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Ind. 308

Bright v. Markle

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1861

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1861-12-07

<p>Suit by A., an ex-county treasurer, against D., to recover the amount of certain taxes assessed against him, and which A., when county treasurer, had charged up to himself, and for which he had accounted. Answer : The general denial. On the trial, the plaintiff was permitted to prove by parol that the lands upon which the taxes had accrued were assessed to B., without producing the assessment roll or tax duplicate, or showing any excuse for their non-production.</p> <p>Held, that the testimony was erroneously admitted.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1874

2 state decisions

Relies on Kinney v. Doe ex dem. Laman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-12-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Perkins, J.

¶1Indiana has the following statutory profusion:

“Whenever any county treasurer or collector for any previous year, shall have charged himself with, and accounted for, any tax that shall not have been paid to him, such tax *309shall be deemed and taken as due him personally, whether in or out of office, and may be by him collected in the same way as other taxes due and unpaid are collected.” 1 R. S., § 105, p-131.
C. L. Dunham and Gordon Tanner, for the appellant.II. ONeal, for the appellee.

¶2Jacob Maride was treasurer of Jasper county, Indiana, and alleges that he charged himself with taxes due from Bright and Dunn, and settled with the auditor for them. He now sues Bright and Dunn in an ordinary civil action for the amount, as for money paid to their use.

¶3In the Court below, Dunn made default; Bright answered by a general denial. This threw upon Maride the burden oí making out his case.

¶4To prove that the lands were assessed to Bright and Dunn, he did not offer the assessment roll, or tax duplicate, but, as the bill of exceptions shows, was permitted, over the objection of Bright, to prove the fact by parol, without showing any excuse for not producing the written evidence. That tins was error there can be no doubt, and it was made the ground of a motion for a new trial. The assessment roll is not a written instrument; but it is in writing. See Kinney v. Doe, 8 Blackf. 350; Smith v. The District Trustees, &c., 5 id. 40.

¶5Per Curiam. — The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

/17/ind/308 · .json · Public domain