My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 1998 12 07
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1998
>
AG 1998 12 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 6:09:48 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:53:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
12/7/1998
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
§162-9 AST. ~.. SKE~,~'~'S BOND §162-10 <br /> <br />§ 162-9. Co*~nty commissioners to t~i~e ~nd ap- <br /> prove bonds. <br /> The board of county commissioners in every county shall take. <br />and approve the official bond of the sheriffs, which they shall ~adse' <br />to be registered and the oriKinal de _l~S_ itod with the clerk of superior <br />court for safekeeping. The Bond sh~ll be taken on the first Monday <br />of Decembor next after the election. (1806, c. 699, s. 2, P.R.; 1830, c. <br />5, s. 5; R.C., c. 105, s. 6; 1868, c. 20, s. 32; 1876-7, c. 276, s. 5; Code, <br />ss. 2066, 2068; Rev., s. 2812; C.S., s. 3931; 1983, c. 670, s. 5.) <br /> <br />CASE NOTES <br /> <br /> Purpose. -- The evident purpose of <br />thi~ section is only to protect and safe- <br />~nzard the public revenue and to ensure <br />its honest collection and application. <br />Hudson v. McArthur, 152 N.C. 445, 67 <br />S.E. 995 (1910). <br /> Execution and Approval of <br />Bond(s) Essential, -- To entitle a sher- <br />iff' to be inducted into office, it is essen- <br />tially necessary that the bond(s) must be <br />executed by him and approved by the <br />c~unty commissioners. Dixon v. Com- <br />missioners of Beaufort, 80 N.C. 118 <br />(1879). <br /> <br /> Commi~ioners Held Not l.iAble to <br />Sureties for Failure to <br />ceipts, ~ County commlssioners were <br />not liable to the sureties on the bond of a <br />defaulting sheriff and to~ collector <br />whose defalcations they were required to <br />pay for failure to demand sheriff's re- <br />ceipts in full for taxes collected the pre- <br />viotts year before permitting him to <br />ceive the tax duplicato for the current <br />year. Hudson v. McArthur, 152 <br />445, 67 S.E. 995 (1910). <br /> Cited in Pender County v. King, 197 <br />N.C. 50, 147 S.E. 695 (1929), <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.