Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-03-10
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE sU.
PREME COURT.
Clerks and Clerks and Masters HAZE
10 Make Assessment Returns.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Nicholson

CIet ks and Clerks and Masters Hate
10 Make Assessment Returns.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Nicholson.
March I, 1874.
H. RIDDLE, c. & ~. Ex PABrE.
The Cltra and Master Of tire thancerV
Court at Lebanon, having in his hands as
clerk the funds of various parties, subject
to distribution under the orders of the
court, submitted to the Chancellor, by be-
titi6n, the question, whether it was Ills duty
under section SO of the Assessment Act Of
March %, 1878, to report said funds for as
.es..rcn.. Tiis Chancellor held fbaf iba
funds should be assessed for taxation. and
that the same should be reported to the as
sesser for that purpose. From this hoiding
the owners fthe funds have appealed.
The section of the act of 1873, under
which the question arises, is as follows:
Sec. 80. THAT persons aetirg as exeeu-
tors, administrators, guardians, agents or
attorneys, or in any fiduciary capacity what
ever, shall make return of the property,
moneys, credits and effects held by them in
either of said capacities, separate from
their individual rettirns, and the same shall
be listed separately for taxation" etc.
II is insisted for the appellants. that the
true construction of this section is, that if
the clerk is merely the custodian of the
property or moneys, the rights of the par
ties being fixed, the same should be assess
eddy and in this manner. But if the clerk
has a special property in property OF funds
as trustee, etc, bF Write Of an appointment
of the court, the real owners not being siii
juriS, or their rights not being settled, the
assessment should be made BY and i'm the
name of the clerk.
We are unable to discover in the Ian
guage Of the section, that the Legislature
intended to make the distinction contended
for. The leading object was to provide the
means by which all property. moneys, etc,
should be reached for taxation. To ascer-
tain and assess all such property, money,
etc, was the first thing to be secured. To
effect this object, section IS was intended TO
reach all such property, moneys, etc, not
in the actual possession or under the actual
control OF the owners thereof. Hence. il is
made the duty of all persons acting rs ex-
ecutorS, administrators, guardians, agents,
or in any fiduciary capacity whatever, to
make returns, etc. The language is as
broad and comprehensive as words could
well make it. II was not intended that
this duty should BE confined to executes,
administrators, guardians, or Others acting
in any fiduciary capacity whatever, but it is
expressly imposed also on '.agents or attOr-
neys.' That this language was used with
the intention of embracing other agents
than those having a special property in the
funds, as trustee, etc, by virtue of an ap-
pointment of the court, seems clear from
the care with which it is provided that
agents or attorneys" shall make return.
and then thai all persons ain any fiduciary
capacity whatever" shall also make returns.
Hence, If it be true that the clerk does not
hold the funds in question in any fiduciary
capacity whatever, under the appointment
of the court, which is by no means con-
ceded, yet it is clear that he holds them as
agent Of the owners thereof, and as such is
bound to return them for assessment.
Wethjnk the argument, Gb itcORrenientO,
against this construction, is answered by
the fact that such funds are required to be
returned separate from the clerks individ-
nal returns, and by see. 81 the assessments
are to be returned to the County Court,
where the owner of the funds can readily
see whether or not their funds have been
assessed twice, and have the error COR
rected.
We are Of opinion that the Chancellor's
holding was correct, and we affirm ii with
costs. NICHOLSON, c. J.