Chandler v. State

• Decision Date: 30 September 1878
• Citation: 69 Tenn. 296
• Parties: Chandler et als. v. The State.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

69 Tenn. 296

Chandler et als.

v.The State.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1878.

FROM BLOUNT.

Appeal in error from the Circuit Court of Blount County. E. T. HALL, J.

MCGINLEY and HOOD & ROWAN for Chandler et als.

ATTORNEY GENERAL LEA for the State.

MCFARLAND, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a motion against R. P. Chandler and his securities for balances of State revenue for the year 1875, upon a bond executed by him and said securities upon his induction into the office of revenue collector for Blount county for the term of two years from the 1st of September, 1874. The bond in terms covers the entire term.

The first defense relied upon for the securities is the act of the Legislature, approved March 24, 1875, extending to the tax-payers further time for the payment of the taxes for the year 1874, and providing that securities upon bonds previously executed should appear in the County Court and acknowledge their willingness to remain bound as securities, otherwise a new bond should be taken. The securities in this case did not comply with this provision of the act, and a new bond for the taxes of 1874 was taken. But we do not see that this in any manner affects the question of the collector's liability for the taxes of 1875, for which this motion is made. The act referred to does not change the collector's duties as to the taxes of 1875, or in any manner refer thereto; and conceding that, by their failure to comply with this act, and by the exe??tion of a new bond for the taxes of 1874, the present sureties were released from liability for the taxes of that year, still their liability for the taxes of 1875 remains as before.

It is next objected, that in the judgment rendered by the Circuit Judge is included $540 penalties charged against the tax-payers by the 57th section of the act of 1873, ch. 118, for failing to pay in time, which section was, it is claimed, repealed by the 3d section of the act of March 25, 1875, before referred to; and, also, the judgment includes a large sum of taxes assessed on dogs and bitches under an act which this court has declared unconstitutional, and therefore the collector and his securities should not be held liable for these sums.

If the penalties prescribed by the act of 1873 were repealed by the act of 1875, the collector would not be liable for failing to collect such penalties as he would be for failing to collect taxes lawfully assessed. If, however, he actually collected the penalties, he and his securities are estopped to deny the validity of the collection, and he can not refuse to pay over the money: Code, sec. 774; McLean's case, 8 Heis. The collector, by the 57th section of...