380 CASES IN TILE SUPREME COURT Randle vs. Williams ad. [J anuary / .1511 Uralk expind In Floyd C ilbreath, 27 ,GS2 Pea ine_ Co v Ma tthell 46 /187 RANDLE VS. WILLIAMS AD. A writ of certiorari will be quashed by the Court, on the motion of a party, or of its own motion, at any stage of the proceeding, if the Court becomes satisfied that it ought not to have issued. If the assessment and levy of taxes upon the property of an individual be excessive, the appropriate remedy is by appeal to the County Court to have the assessment corrected. The Circuit Court has no jurisdiction, by writ of certiorari, to correct the assessment and taxation of property by the sheriff and collector, nor to revise his commissions and charges iv the collection of the revenue, Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ch y le covnty. The- Thm. SnErTox WATSON, Circuit Judge Flanagin for the appellant. The petitionet had his remedy by application to the County Court, under sec. 4, P. 55, Acts of 1852, to correct his taxes if they were overcharged; and having neglected that, he was without remedy. See Asborn vs. The Inhabitants of Dowriss, 9 Pic17. Rep. If the petitioner had been compelled to make the payment he had his remedy against the sheriff for money paid by compulsion. 12 Pick. 7; 21 lb. 64 ; Ib. 75. Jordan for the appellee. It is submitted that the petitioner sought the proper and only remedy for relief in the premises, by an application to the Circuit Court for a supersedeas and certiorari. That the Court had authority to grant the writs and properly exercised it, the following authorities are submitted. Carnall
OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 381 Term. 18571 Randle vs Williams 'ad. vs. Crawford County, 6 Eng. 604 ; Roberts vs. Williams, 13 Ark. 355 ; Couch, Ex. parte. 14 Ib. 337; Marr, Ex parte. 7 Eng. 84; Buckner et al, ex parte, 4 Eng: 73 ; Pike vs. The State, 5 Ark. 204. And if the GoArt, in the eyercise of its superintending control over interior Courts and their process, had not jurisdiction to perpetually supersede so much of the amount required to made by sale of the lands and town lots, as was illegally and wrongfully eliniged, appellant virtually admitted the jurisdiction by failing to plead to it, Vide authorities above cited. 11r. Justice Hanly delivered the opinion of the Court. It is somewhat difficult to ascertain the precis, character of tho proceeding hetore us ; because, it seems to have commenced at law, and ended in a decree in chancery ; thus uniting chancery and law proceedings in thc same controversy, or snit, and producing thereby an abimdant finavest of error, and inextricable confusion. As a chancery proceeding it wi wild be wholly unwarranted and 1month/wired. We shall, therefore, regard it as having been intended to invoke a remedy at law, through the instroun ntality or agency of the eonnnon law writ of certiorari, issuing from the Circuit to the County Court of Clark county, as such appears to have been the design of the appellee in setting the proceeding on foot. The fact is, the counsel for the appellee seems to combat the idea with apparent warmth, that it ever was intended, or can lie considered, as II 1'1181-leery proceeding in an y sense whatever. The petition, in substance, complains that appellant iq clwriff
eolleetor of Clark y etonty ; that there is an excess in the assessment and taxation of certain tracts of land, and fifty-six town lots, situate in Clark connty, for the year 1853, and belonging to the estate of Samuel _Rome. deceased, of which ap-pOlec is the administi ator: And it also complains that the appellant, as sheriff and collector of that county, had charged more fees or commissions than he was entitled to by law, and
also had paid the printer, tor advertising Hip said lands and
lots for sale for taxes. more than he could rightfully or lawfully
382 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT Randle vs WilliaIns ad (January charge; that appellant Was about to sell the said lands aml town lots for the taxes, penalty and costs, so illegally charged thereon, and the petition, among other things, pra , Ned that a certiorari be issued to bring up the record and proceedings of the Count8- Court relative to the assessment of the taxes on the said lands and town lots mentioned, for the year 1853, and that the same might be quashed, and the sale thereof superseded. The:petition showed that no part of the taxes or costs had • been paid, but stated that, aftel the advertis,imnt for sale, a tender was made to the:appellant, as Collector, of the of tax, fees and costs, that petitioner : considered to he iustl:v due; bill that the appellant, as collector, refused to reeeive in satisfaction a less sum than the whole amount he had charged. • The application was made, and the writ isued iii vacation: The record was retained on certiorari, and the sale ordered to be superseded. When the CLISC was finaTh ilisposuil of in thi: Cir'euit Court, it was "ordered, adjudged and decreed .'b y tlw Court, that the supersedeas be set aside as to $44.68, and per-eetuated as to $36 68, and that the appellant pay the cost.; expended: and from which he appealed to tins (iourt. 1.It is well settled, that if the Court becomes satisfied, at any stage uf the cause, that the writ of certiorari ought not to have issued or been granted, it may be, quashed, on the motion of the party, or by the C : ourt of its o■vn iriott■ii ; 1outThilse, other - wise, a Court might be forced to proceed, if ri ithi i part y should see fit to make a motion of the kind, aith owl it miOrt discover that a wrong was about to be committed See Rex vs, Wake-field, 1 BUTT. 455. The People vs. The Supervisors of Allegliany 15 Wend. R.,198. The People vs. The Supervisors of Queens, 1 Hill's R. 200. It resembles a case, where a Conn will : , of its own motion dismiss a proceeding at any stage of the cause when a want of jurisdiction is discovered. See Tunstall vs. Worthington Hump C. C. R: 662. The State vs. Kingland, Zabr. (1\:. Rep. 85.
OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 383 "Term, 1857] Randle vs: Williams ad: And this will result from the fact, that, at common law, the writ of certiorari is not a writ of right, but will be granted or denied in the discretion of the Court, acc ording to the circumstances of eneh particular case. Its issuing in cases where it properly may issue, is discretionary with the Court, and it, therefore, becomes a duty to quash it, whenever it plainly appears that such discretion has been improperly exercised. It was said in the ease in 1 Hill 200, above cited, that the Court will retrace its steps, by quashing the writ. notwithstanding a return has heel] made, and the merits of the ease gone Into And in 1 linrr, tho writ of certiorari was superseded, the retcon order to be taken fr o m the files, and the order of the justives. which ha/I been rermwed by the certiorari, was remanded to the justices again. 2. By the aet of 1853, the assessors throughout the State are required to file the assessment lists in the office of the county elcrk on, or 'before the April. and give notiee of tlw fact in each township in the colmty And the same not provides, that :117 1 /II aggrieved by snob assessment, so required to be filed, may appeal to the County Court, at the uext term thereof after the assessment is so filed, and have the assessment corrected, if it should be found to be ineorrect. The manner and mode in which Such appeal shall be taken to and conducted hy, the County Court. /ire also prescribed by the act. See Pamph. Acts of 18:13, p. ;■:"/, sees. 3 and 4. Hence, if it be true, as alleged in the petition, that the as-1111aUt: avid levy ,cf tax es on the property therein mentioned was excessive, no proposition can be clearer than that the appropriate remedy was by appeal, to the County Court, under the statuti . to have the amount erroneously assessed and levied con ected and adjusted in that respect. And it (hoes not appear, -nor Is it pretended, that the appellee was deprived of the right /If 'appeal without fault or negligence on his part. See Rohort; vs Williams, 15 Arh. H. 48 If the sheriff and collector charged more fees and commissions than the law allowed, he was liable to the injured pally
384 oxsEs EN THE SUPREME COURT [January in a civil snit, in ease tlky were paid, for the amount illegally charged, and five dollars for eaeh item illegally demanded, and was also subject to a criminal proceeding ni the form of ;ill indictment for extortion, See Digest 527_ We are, therefore, of the opinn in that the writ of certiorari was improvidently issued in this ease, and that the motion of the appellant to quash the same, and set aside tfie supersoileas ought to have been sustained. The judgnient of the Chirk Circuit Coritt rendered in this cause, is, therefore, reversed, and the same remanded to said Court with directifflis that the certiorari viranteil hiei in lv, quashed, and supersedeas awarded thereon he set aside,
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.