Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-07-15
ILLEGAL COSTS.
Another Decision of Interest 90 Tax
Payers.


In a recent issue of your paper, YOU pub
lished the opinion Of Jadge Baxter in the
case of JnO. w. Bryan ct al. vs.. W. A.
Knight, Railroad Tax Collector, Albert
Akers, Clerk of the Circuit Court, and the
publishers of the Banner. The proceeding
was by a motion to retax the costs in the
eases, where judgment of condemnation was
entered against lands for nOn-payment of
railroad taxes for 1882. In these cases the
plaintiffs, (the parties whose lands had been
condemned and adveTtised,) took the posi-
tion that the costs or fees taxed and allowed
the Collector, Clerk and Printer, were errO-
neOus, excessive and illegal. We were en-
ployed on behalf of the plaintiffs to make
the effort in the Circuit Court, to have the
| costs retaxed and reduced. The opinion
you have already published, was rendered
as TO the Collector and Printer, no decision
as to the Clerk having been made
at that time. Since then, the
motion as to him, has been determined.
We request you to publish the following
| judgment, which has been entered as to all
in order that parties who have not as vet
settled their taxes, costs and charges, may
| know what costs and charges they have
really to settle. Under the opinion of the
| court, unless a distress warrant has been
| properly executed, the officer whose duty it
was TO have the same done, is entitled to
no fee whatever. FRANK L. REID.
NELL ). BROWN, JR.
JUDGE BAXTERs OPINION.
W. ii. Walton, John w. Bryan, A. d..
McNairy, +. 5. Reid, w. "a. Chatham,
Fred Laitenberger, A. j. Roper, receiver Cf
| w. p. Downs estate, John Trimble, Hugh
T. McGavOck, Building and Loan AssOcia-
tion, f. II. Calhoun, Thomas Calender,
wi for James G.. Owen, vs.. w. \. Knight,
7 r. Collector, Albert Akers, Cir
~ "a, t - "a y Purvis, pub
lishers Of The BerubI;s,iR ,BaRRer.
In this cause the court il ~ OpiHipt, thai
the costs taxed in the same at the Janudf9
term of this court, 1874, were illegal and
| erroneous, inaSmuch as in said taxation OF
costs the fees of the collector were fixed at
81 on each lot or tract reported by him to
the court for condemnation, whereas, the
| Judgment shows that the collector in many
cases included i'm one return two or more
| lots as Owned nv the same Taxpayer. and
was allowed zee Of al ont each Of said lots
| or tracts. The court is of opinion th-t the
collector is entitled TO a fee Of soc. for one
distress warrant against each taxpayer
returned Rulld bona or satisfied, and to
fee of 81 for each lot or tract reported sep
arately. Ii is therefore ordered and decreed
| that thu costs Of the collector be corrected
| in this particular, and that the collector be
authorized 10 collect rs his fee SOC. for one
distress warrant dgdinst each Taxpayer,
whAra The sarfre hGs been returned HUild
bona or satisfied, and 81 for each lot or
tract OF land reported separately, arid 81
for each bunch CT lots or tracts where two
or more lots or tracts are punched in one re
port; provided the collector shows that he
has exhausted his legal remedy under dis
treSS warrant; and If he fails 10 show that
he has exhausted his remedy by distress
warrant, then the collector to receive no Zee
whatever.
The court is further Of the opinion that
! tile taxation Of the costs in this cause IS
| Illegal and erroneous in the following par
| ticular. to wit. that The printer was allowed
| a fee Of Sl.j0 against each lot or tract adj
vertISed by him. when it appears from The
| list of advertised property that IN many IN
| stances the printer incluued in one and The
same notice or advertisement many lots or
| tracts owned by the same party, thus max
| Ing, in contemplation of law, notice or
advertisement of but one lot or tract. 1t
/ Is therefore ordered and decreed that the
costs be corrected as to the printer in this
particular, and that the printer be allowed
| 10 collect fee of S1.5O for each lot or tract
| separately advertised by MIN, and fee OF
/ only SIJO for each advertisement Of one or
/ more lots included iii the same notice.
And the court is further of opinion, and
| doth so adjudge, that the Clerk Of this court
| is entitled to a fee Of Sl.5O for the services
| reduirgd by law of him for each LOT or tract
/ of land Separately reported by him, and
81 80 for each bunch Of lots or tracts,
where two or more lots or tracts have been
| punched in one report.