Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 18-1-108 (2026)
Authority
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The clerks of the several courts have authority to:
- (1) Administer oaths and take affidavits in all cases in which the authority to administer the oath is not confined to some other officer, and the power may be exercised either in vacation or term time;
- (2) Take depositions to be read as evidence in any judicial proceeding in this or any other state;
- (3) Take probate of the attendance of witnesses, and issue tickets, in vacation as well as term time, and in civil as well as criminal cases, at any time between the commencement and decision of a cause;
- (4) Appoint deputies with full power to transact all the business of the clerk, such deputy first taking an oath to support the constitution and laws of this state, and faithfully to discharge the duties of deputy clerk of the court for which the deputy acts;
- (5) Receive the amount of any judgment or decree rendered in the court of which they are clerks, either before or after the issue of execution on the judgment or decree; and
- (6) Exercise such other powers as are, or may be, conferred upon them by law.
- (b) In counties where the clerks and the judges wish to establish a cooperative child support collection system that will serve all courts in the counties in which child support is ordered, the clerks of those counties may enter into an agreement, approved by the respective judges, that child support shall be collected and distributed by one (1) clerk for all the clerks of the counties. The agreement shall be in writing and shall set forth all the terms and conditions for the cooperative child support system. The clerk operating the cooperative child support system for the counties shall be financially accountable and treat all payments as if the order of child support had originated in the court served by that clerk.
Code 1858, § 4050 (deriv. Acts 1801, ch. 6, § 32; 1845-1846, ch. 164, § 1; 1849-1850, ch. 103, § 2); Shan., § 5865; Code 1932, § 10067; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 18-108; Acts 1989, ch. 346, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1988–2014 · leading case: Hoyle v. Wilson, 746 S.W.2d 665 (Tenn. 1988).
Hoyle v. Wilson, 746 S.W.2d 665 (Tenn. 1988). “Although the preferable procedure would have been for Respondent to have petitioned the court to suspend his support obligation while he had lost contact with Petitioner and the children and to have paid the support to the Davidson County Circuit Court Clerk pursuant to T.”
Vooys v. Turner, 49 S.W.3d 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “T.C.A. § 18-1-108(5). In tendering the funds into court, however, the insurance carrier did not specifically pay them in satisfaction of the judgment.”
Underwood v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 782 S.W.2d 175 (Tenn. 1989). “T.C.A. § 18-1-108(5). In tendering the funds into court, however, the insurance carrier did not specifically pay them in satisfaction of the judgment.”
Donna F. Thompson v. Lynn Ward (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 18-1-108 (a)(4). “The power to appoint a deputy necessarily involves the idea that he shall act in the place of, and for the regular Clerk, and exercise the same powers; the acts of the deputy being the acts of the principal Clerk, by his lawfully appointed…”
Donna F. Thompson v. Lynn Ward (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 18-1-108 (a)(4). “The power to appoint a deputy necessarily involves the idea that he shall act in the place of, and for the regular Clerk, and exercise the same powers; the acts of the deputy being the acts of the principal Clerk, by his lawfully appointed…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 18-1-108(5) — 3 cases
Hoyle v. Wilson, 746 S.W.2d 665 (Tenn. 1988). “Although the preferable procedure would have been for Respondent to have petitioned the court to suspend his support obligation while he had lost contact with Petitioner and the children and to have paid the support to the Davidson County Circuit Court Clerk pursuant to T.”
Vooys v. Turner, 49 S.W.3d 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “T.C.A. § 18-1-108(5). In tendering the funds into court, however, the insurance carrier did not specifically pay them in satisfaction of the judgment.”
Underwood v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 782 S.W.2d 175 (Tenn. 1989). “T.C.A. § 18-1-108(5). In tendering the funds into court, however, the insurance carrier did not specifically pay them in satisfaction of the judgment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.