Legal Opinion

State v. Murphy

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1898PublishedCited by 6 opinions

PROM KNOX. Appeal from Chancery Court of Knox County. H. B. Lindsay, Oh.

1Opinion of the CourtBeard, J.

The defendant, Murphy, was appointed Back Tax Attorney for the County of Knox by the Comptroller of the State, under the provisions of Chapter 120 of the Acts of the Legislature of 1895. Having qualified himself as required by that Act, he set about the discharge of his duties, and during his incumbency he collected large sums of money from delinquent taxpayers, all of which he paid over to the financial officers of the State and county, except the sum of $5,486.67, which he claimed the right to retain from the county, as compensation *517for services which he rendered as such attorney in making…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. SpurgeonTennessee Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Johnson v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. New England Mut. Life Ins. v. ReeceTennessee Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Carey v. CareyTennessee Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Price-Bass Co. v. McCabeTennessee Supreme Court · 1930
  4. McHenderson v. Anderson CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Pryor v. Marion CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1917

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API