Summary
Judgments reversed. Gardner, P. J., Townsend, Carlisle, and Quillian, JJ., concur. Felton, C. J., dissents.
Summary
Judgments reversed. Gardner, P. J., Townsend, Carlisle, and Quillian, JJ., concur. Felton, C. J., dissents.
Text
Harold Sheats, Paul H. Anderson, W. Neal Baird, contra.R. B. Pullen, for plaintiff in error.
Mrs. Estelle Wade filed a petition in the Court of Ordinary of Fulton County in which she sought, for herself and her minor child, a year's support from the estate of her deceased husband. After the appraisers made their return the applicant filed an amendment to the original petition in which she alleged that proceeds from certain insurance policies were not taken into consideration when the original petition was filed, and that the appraisers did not know of such policies, and requested that the appraisers be authorized to reconsider the appraisal in view of such information for the purpose of allowing so much of the proceeds of the insurance policies as a part of the year's support as they should see fit to do. The appraisers were ordered to so reconsider, and thereafter filed an amended return in which the proceeds of such policies were added as a part of the year's support. Thereafter, a caveat was filed to the return of the appraisers by Standish Thompson, who is Tax Commissioner of Fulton County, in which, as finally amended, it was alleged that the estate of the petitioner's deceased husband was indebted to the State, Fulton County, and the City of Atlanta for ad valorem taxes for the year 1957, that the property set aside in the return of the appraisers was excessive, and prayed that the year's support award be made subject to the payment of all taxes due the City of Atlanta, Fulton County, and the State of Georgia. The caveator also filed a motion to strike the amendment to the return of the appraisers which motion was sustained on appeal to the superior court. The ordinary entered a final judgment allowing the return of the appraisers subject to the taxes due the City of Atlanta and Fulton County. The widow, having filed a demurrer to the caveat, which demurrer was renewed after amendment and overruled by the ordinary, appealed to the superior court where such demurrer was overruled. It is to this judgment adverse to her that the widow excepts, as well as to the other judgments adverse to her.
1. The first question is whether a tax commissioner is a proper party to file a caveat to the return of appraisers appointed by an ordinary, although it has apparently been done in other cases. See Davis v. City of Atlanta,
In the case of McGahee v. McGahee,
It necessarily follows that if the taxes are not debts then neither the decedent nor his estate is a debtor as concerns such taxes, and that the tax commissioner is not a creditor who is concerned with the administration of the estate and who would be entitled to file a caveat to the return of the appraisers in the year's support proceedings.
This question was not passed on in either Davis v. City of Atlanta,
Moreover, in further response to the contention that a tax commissioner, in his capacity as tax collector, has an interest in the administration of an estate so as to be a proper party to file a caveat to the return of appraisers in a year's support proceedings, reference should be made to Code 89-903 which provides: "Powers of all public officers are defined by law, and all persons must take notice thereof. The public may not be estopped by the acts of any officer done in the exercise of a power not conferred." The duties, generally, of a tax collector are set forth in Code 92-4901 and none of them requires him to examine all the returns of appraisers awarding years' supports, to determine for himself whether any return is excessive, and if he deems any return excessive to file a caveat thereto on such ground. Subparagraph 12 of Code 92-4901, supra, does require tax collectors to: "Perform all other duties that the law requires, and which necessarily under the law appertain to his office." These duties to which reference is made are duties placed upon him by law, for custom cannot extend his duties ( Taylor v. State,
As shown above, the law provides the method for collecting taxes, and there is no authority to collect taxes in any other manner than that so provided ( Kirk v. Bray,
If the governments purported to be represented by the tax commissioner in his capacity as tax collector have such an interest in the administration of an estate because of taxes which might be due them in the event the estate is sufficient to provide for those claims on the estate superior to their taxes and still have funds available for the taxes, then it would be the proper authorities of such governments who would be authorized to file a caveat to the year's support proceedings, and not the tax collector, whose duties are limited by law.
Accordingly, the general demurrer to the caveat as amended should have been sustained, for the tax commissioner was not a "person concerned" as contemplated by Code 113-1005.
2. Since the caveat to the return of the appraisers was without standing in the proceedings in the courts below it necessarily follows that the other judgments adverse to the widow on motions of the caveator were error and must be reversed.
The tax commissioner is charged with the collection of taxes and is impliedly authorized to do whatever is necessary and proper to insure their collection in his official capacity. Code 92-4901. See Code 113-1212. The fact that a year's support is a favorite of the law and dictated by a very humanitarian public policy is irrelevant to the issue. The law does not intend for an excessive. year's support to transfer the burden of taxes from the property set aside as a year's support to other innocent taxpayers. I dissent from the judgment of reversal.
1958
Sponsored links