Case ID: ga_48/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Trippe, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Smith, plaintiff in error, vs. T. J. Mason, tax collector, for use, etc., defendant in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    Transfer of Tax Execution — Levy and Sale. — Before the passage of the Act of August 24, 1872, there was no authority in any officer to transfer an execution for taxes so as to entitle the transferee to enforce the same by levy and sale of the property of the defendant.
    Illegality. Tax. Execution. Before Judge Robinson. Jones Superior Court. April Term, 1872.
    
      On December 7th, 1869, T. J. Mason, tax collector for the county of Jones, by his agent, Roland T, Ross, issued execution against Joseph Smith for $139 55, the amount of his tax for the year 1869, and the costs. Upon this execution was a ^receipt to Smith for $21 30, dated December 7th, 1869; also a receipt to Nathaniel S. Glover for $118 75, the balance due, dated December 10th, 1869; also the following entry: “For and in consideration of $118 75, paid by Nathaniel S. Glover on this fi. fa., I hereby transfer the same to him without recourse on me. December 10, 1869.
    (Signed) “R. T. Ross, Agent for
    “T. J. Mason, T. C.”
    On November 4th, 1871, the above execution, at the instance of Glover, was levied upon certain lands, the property of Smith. The latter filed an affidavit of illegality upon the grounds that the execution had been paid off, and that neither the tax collector nor his agent had authority to transfer the same.
    Upon the trial of the issue thus formed, the defendant requested the Court to charge the jury that neither the tax collector nor his agent had authority to transfer the execution to a third person paying off the same; that upon its payment by such third person, the tax collector’s control over it ceased, and it could not be enforced against the property of the tax payer in the hands of any one. The Court refused to charge as requested, and charged directly to the contrary. To which charge, and refusal to charge, the defendant excepted. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff.
    The defendant assigns error upon each of the grounds of exception aforesaid.
    W. A. LoETon, by Z. D. Harrison, for plaintiff in error.
    C. D. Barteett, for defendant.
    
      
      Transfer of Tax Execution. — “Prior to 1872, there was no law authorizing any officer to transfer a tax execution.” Jarrett v. Railway Co., 120 Ga. 473, citing principal case. See also, State and County v. Wingfield, 59 Ga. 203.
    
   Trippe, Judge.

The tax collector is an officer of the State to collect the taxes due from the tax payer. When this transfer was made of the tax execution, there was no statute allowing it to be done. Since then, an Act has been passed, August 24, 1872, giving to the officer whose duty it is to enforce the execution *the power to transfer it to any person who pays it. It required the authority of the 'Legislature to grant the power. That Act defines what the transferee may do in enforcing his rights as such, and confers on him all that was possessed by the State. Without this Act, such an assignment could not be made. The collector was not the plaintiff, nor was he interested in the execution, nor does he come within the provisions or spirit of sections 3539, 3540, of the Code.

Judgment reversed.