Tenn. Code Ann. » Tenn. Code / Title 8 / Chapter 22 / Part 1
Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-22-103 (2024)

Excess fees are property of county

✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All the excess fees, commissions, emoluments and perquisites, no matter whether such sums arise from fees, commissions, emoluments or perquisites by order or by direction of court, that are or may be directly or indirectly collected by virtue of their offices by the clerks of the circuit, criminal and special courts, and by the clerks and masters of the chancery courts, county clerks and clerks of the probate courts, county trustees, registers of deeds, clerks of the general sessions courts, juvenile court clerks, and sheriffs, except compensation for special services as trustee or receiver, and except, also, payment for special services as special commissioner, shall be paid to the county trustee as a part of the county revenue, and the same when accrued are declared to be the property of the respective counties wherein the same are collectible, except as herein provided.

Acts 1921, ch. 101, § 6; Shan. Supp., § 6428a43; Code 1932, § 10730; Acts 1955, ch. 116, § 2; 1969, ch. 332, § 2; impl. am. Acts 1978, ch. 934, §§ 22, 36; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 8-2203; Acts 1990, ch. 1035, § 15.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1988–2001 · leading case: Spurlock v. Sumner Cnty., 42 S.W.3d 75 (Tenn. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spurlock v. Sumner Cnty., 42 S.W.3d 75 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 8-22-101 (1993), which restricts fees for services performed by clerks and county officers, lists sheriffs as among the “county officers” to whom the statute applies, and Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-22-103 (1993) provides that excess fees collected by such officers, again including the…”
Bates v. Alexander, 749 S.W.2d 742 (Tenn. 1988). · cites it 2× “T.C.A. § 8-22-103. Plaintiffs insist that the use of a population-based classification to exclude the five urban counties from the fee increases is unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary and without purpose, denies the excluded counties the equal protection of the law, and…”
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.