Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 Ga. 592

Hight v. Fleming

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 10, 1885

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1885-03-10

<p>1. A tax collector is authorized to issue an execution, for an unpaid liquor tax</p> <p>2. Although, on a money rule, a tax fi. fa. claiming to share in the distribution was issued against a person other than the defendant from whose property the fund in court was raised, yet where it appeared that the person against whom the tax fi. fa. was issued was the agent of the person from whose property the fund was raised, and that the fi. fa. issued for the ‘ taxes of the identical property sold to raise the fund, the fi. fa. was properly ordered to be paid.</p> <p>3. Where a distress warrant was issued and levied before any lien for labor attached, the work for which the lien was claimed not having been completed, the distress warrant took precedence in the distribution of a fund arising from a sale of the debtor’s property.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-03-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1949

8 state decisions

301885189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Blandford, Justice.

¶1Fleming, the defendant in error, obtained a distress warrant for rents against one G. B. Watson in September, 1884, and caused the same to be levied on certain property of 'Watson, which was sold by a constable, and the money arising from said sale being in the hands of the *595constable, Fleming brought this rulé against the constable to have the money paid over to -him on his distress warrant. The tax collector claimed that so much of said money as was necessary be paid on two tax executions, one for twenty-five dollars, liquor tax for 1884, and the other for •general tax, which was issued against one J. F. Watson. Hight claimed the money on an execution issued on a foreclosure of a laborer’s lien. The .court directed that the money be applied first to the payment of the tax executions and then to the distress warrant. These claims exhausted the fund in the ofiicer’s hands. Hight excepted to this ruling, and brings the case here for review.

¶21. The plaintiff in error insists that the tax collector had no authority to issue an execution for the liquor tax, but we think section 8S6 of the Code answers this objection.

¶32. It is further insisted that the execution against J. F. Watson, for taxes, was not entitled to be paid out of the fund, because the same was raised from the sale of the property of G. B. Watson. This position would be correct if it had not been made to appear that J. F. Watson was the agent of G- B. Watson, and the execution issued for the taxes levied on-the identical property sold. This appearing, there is nothing in this ground.

¶43. The distress warrant of Fleming was issued and levied before any lien for labor attached in favor of Hight, the work for which he claimed the lien not having been completed until after the distress warrant had issued and been levied.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/74/ga/592 · .json · Public domain