Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Ga. 90

McCrory v. Manes

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided July 15, 1872

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1872-07-15

Relief Act of 1870. Scaling Ordinance. Tax books. Evidence. Before Judge Johnson. Talbot Superior Court. March term, 1872. Benjamin Manes brought complaint against William H. McCrory, as principal, and Isaac Cheney, as security, on a promissory note made on March 1st, 1863, due January 1st, next thereafter, for the sum of $815 16, with interest from date. The defendant pleaded thegeneral issue and the Scaling Ordinance of 1865.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1942

4 state decisions

2018721880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCay, Judge.

¶1The book of the tax receiver is the official entry of a sworn officer of a sworn statement, by the person making the return. This Court, in Lynch vs. Lively, 32 Georgia, 575, and Tolleson vs. Posey, 32 Georgia, 372, held the tax book good evidence to prove the amount of property one of the parties gave in for taxes. Judge Jenkins says in the latter case: “And there can be no more reliable evidence to show a given amount of wealth than his own verified statement, given as the measure of liability for taxation.” It may be added that section 834 of the Code makes the entry in the tax receiver’s book evidence of the fact of the return as entered, even on the trial of an indictment for false swearing. We decided in the case of Bowdre vs. Macon & Brunswick Railroad, 40 Georgia, 143, that the investment made of Confederate money by the taker of it was immaterial in the. adjustment of the equities of the parties under the Ordinance of the Convention of 1865. If we are to follow the investment when it turns out well, the same rule would require us to follow it when it turns out badly, and from one investment into another, so that there would be no end to the inquiry. We would also have to inquire when and how, and on what terms the party got the money who passed it, and so on. The only safe and just rule is that fixed by the Ordinance, to-wit: the value of the consideration, and the value of the money, then and afterwards, and at any time. The good luck, or good judgment, or good management, or bad, of the taker of it in other transactions, is not material. ,

¶2Judgment reversed.

/47/ga/90 · .json · Public domain