Uzzle v. Commissioners of Franklin County

Reads, J. There was error in refusing the mandamus. The case shows that the defendants have ample means with which to pay the plaintiff’s debt. The current expenses of the county are $6,000. The tax list will raise $11,000, which leaves a surplus of $5,000. Why may not that pay the debt? We infer from what is stated (it is not plainly stated) that this surplus is applied towards the payment of the ante-war county debt. There is no necessity for this; because, although that debt has to be paid, yet a tax to pay that debt may bo levied without regard to equation or limitation. And that would leave the surplus of the present tax to be applied to the plaintiff’s debt. . The questions involved have been considered and decided in several cases at this term, and need not be further elaborated. Street v. Comm'rs of Craven Horton v. Comm’rs of Jones; Edwards v. Comm'rs of Wilkes. And see Pegram v. Comm'rs of Cleaveland, 64 N. C. R. 557. This will be certified to the end that a peremptory mandamus may issue, &c. Pee Cubiam. Judgment reversed.