Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-08-14
THE
WEEKLY UNION AND AMERICAN
REVENUE COLLECTORS.

AbA LAOA LeOe
Position and Duties Of the Comp
trOIIer-ImpOrtsat Decision by the
Supreme Court.
From the Nashville Union and American, Sept
II, 1872.
The opinion below will be of as much
general interest to our readers as any deliv-
cred by the Supreme Court iu this State.
Its Importance is at once seen. The follow
ing case was before the Supreme Court at
its recent Jackson term in the Western
Division in this State.
JUDGMENTS AGAINST COLLECTORS OF
REvEEUE MOTIONS, NOTICE, GER
TAINTY.
A notice Of a motion against Revenue
Collector need not specify the day of the
term On which the motion will be entered.
CoMPTRoLLERs.
The Comptroller'S statement of the
amount of revenue dus from a Revenue
Collector TO the State fixes conclpsiVely the
amount for which the court shsll render
judgment, but the judgment rendered is
still subjecs TO credits to o3 allowed by tho
Comptroller.
COMPTROLLER, DUTIES OF THE
The Comptroller of the Treasury is now
s constitutional officer of the Executive
Department, etc.
State of Tennessee VS.. JOS Allison ct ais Opin-
ion.
On April &c, 1872, the Attorney General
for the Thirteenth Judicial District issued to
the Sheriff of Madison county notice to
Joseph Allison and others that be would, at
the May term, 1872, of the Circuit Court
for Madison county, make motion against
them as securities on the official bond OF
w. c. Robinson, deceased, as collector Of
taxes for Madison county for 1866 and 1867,
for the sum of 5,039, the amount of reve-
nue. due the State by said Robinson as tax
collector for the year 1867, as per statement
of the Comptroller Of the State.
The notice was served on the defendants
April q, 1872, which was Elore than five
days befo- the commencement of the May
term Cf the Circuit Court, which began on
the first Monday thereof.
A COPY of the official bond of W. g. Rob-
inson, as Tax COllec,or for 1866 and 1867,
certified by the Comptroller, and also Ger
tilted statement of the account of w. C..
Robinson as Tax Collector for 1866 and
1867, showing balance against him for the
year 1867 Of $5,039.12 were filed in the
Gl6Gh dbO 81 mai AC0 Wy I'm iLO
18th of May, 1872.
May %, 1872, the attorney general for the
district entered upon the minutes of the
court the motion of which he had given no.
tiee. This motion set out ia detail every
recital requisite to coDs itute the basis of a
regular Judgment, referring specifically to
the certified copies Of the official bind OF
the tax coll. ctor and Of The Comptroller's
statement of his sccouut as being on file in
the cause.
May q, 1872, the counsel for defendants
appeared and moved the urt 10 discharge
the motion made by the Attorney General
for the district for want Of proper legal and
sufficient notice, but protesting that they
only appeared TO! that special purpose.
May 81, 1872, the Circuit Court Judge
sustained the motion of the defendants
counsel and dismissed the motion Of the
Attorney General.
From this judgment the State appeals.
The ground on viii b the court dismissed
the motion of the Attorney General seems
to have beer, that the notice was insufhci-
ent inasmuch as it did not de- igGate a
day of the term on which the motion
would be made. 1t was decided long aro
(and the decision has ever since been fol-
lowed) that when notice is given in sum-
mary proceeding that a motion will be
made on a specified day, it must be made
on that day or the proceeding is void unless
cured BIZ the appearance of the paIties.-6
veg. 312; Z Yerg. 14S. But it by no
means follows that notice given i've days
before the C, mmencement of term that
the motion will e made at that term, is
void for insufficiency. 1t may operIte in
conveniently to pal ties to wait on the move
ments Of the Attorney General for several
days or weeks, but only suggests goo
reason why the Attorney General should
not unnecessarily delay the making of the
motion. Il does not make the notice less
valid or Ineffective. If be should delay 10 a
time when the parties might be embarras-
sed in heiDg able then to procure thsir Ell
dence defence, this always addresses
Itself successfully to the court ON an appli
cation fer a co ltinuance.
But in this case the Attorney General re-
moved all ground for complaint. Besides
being very specific in his notice as to the
grounds of the proposed motion, 1t seems
that be fled in The office on the first day o
the term the evidence on which he hsC
notified them he would rely in support OF
his motion. 1t further appears that defen'
dsnts waited five days after the motion
was made before they made their specia
appearance for the purpose of objecting t
the efficiency of the notice and that theil
motion was held over by the court for fou
DAYS before it was decided.
Nicholson j. delivering the opinion: VIZ
are of opinion that the notice was suffcien
and the Circuit Judge erred in dismissini
the motion of the Attorney General. Vid'
case in IL Hum l. -
The question next presented is, whethal
we shall remand the questi- n for trial in to
Circuit Court or proceed to render the judo
ment here which the Circuit Judge ough
to have rendered below. We find tina
when he Attorney General made his INC
tion he based it specifically upon a cer,iie
COPY of the official bond of the Tax ColleC
tor and an authentic statement Of the az
count, showing the amount due from ID
C. Hector for the year 1867, as appears upo
the boz ks of the Comptroller, both OF bic
papers we're filed with the motion. Thi
was all the evidence required by the statut
TO enti ID the State TO judgment.
1t is insisted by the Attorney General 70
the State, that upon making the motion az
adcucipg this evidence, the law made 1t In
du Of the court to give judgment again'
the defendants for the amount thus show
to be due, unless for sufficient reason, sug
ges:ed on OATH, the court should requiI
the production of the original bonds. u
maintains that the law not only makes th
evidence sufficient, but that the court b.
no discretion, but is bound to render jld
meut, and that the defendants ara remitte
10 the Comptroller for she settlement o; tt
Judgment by the allowance by him of an
authenticated claims upon the Tax %
lectCr.
To de ermine The question thus raised
becomes necessary to construe the pr
visions Ct the code bearing upon the So
ject
The Comptroller Of the Treasury is no