Cummings v. Shipp
| Decision Date | 31 March 1928 |
| Citation | 3 S.W.2d 1062 |
| Parties | CUMMINGS, County Judge, v. SHIPP, County Trustee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Bill by Will Cummings, County Judge, against Alvin Shipp, County Trustee, under Declaratory Judgments Law. Reversed, and dismissed on appeal.
Will F. Chamlee, of Chattanooga, for complainant.
Horace Hamby, of Chattanooga, for defendant.
L. D. Bejach, Co. Atty., of Memphis, amicus curiæ.
The bill seeks a declaration as to whether or not chapter 15, Acts of 1927, is constitutional. The act was passed as an amendment to the General Assessment Law (chapter 602, Acts of 1907). Section 48 of the General Law declares that taxes shall be due October 1st and delinquent March 1st of the succeeding year. By the amendatory act the date of delinquency was extended from March 1st to May 1st in all of the counties, including Hamilton county, except Davidson and a few other counties indicated by reference to the federal census. The county judge of Hamilton county objected to this extension, as it applied to his county, and filed the bill against the county trustee of the county. The trustee demurred upon the ground that the amendatory act is not class legislation, and should be held valid.
It is insisted by complainant that the amendatory act cannot be sustained as relating to the counties in their governmental and political capacity or as reasonable classification, and that it is void in contravention of article 1, section 8, and article 11, section 8, of the Constitution. The county trustee joins the county judge in seeking a declaration, but insists, without serious contention, that the act should be declared valid.
The county attorney of Shelby county, as amicus curiæ, insists that the proceeding in which the county judge of Hamilton county seeks to have the amendatory act of 1927 annulled cannot be sustained. He insists that the statements in the bill do not disclose adverse interests between the parties to the suit, and that proper parties were not brought in to confer jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgments Law (chapter 29, Acts of 1923). While jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgments Act is not dependent upon any right of the parties to immediate consequential relief, it is necessary, in order to confer jurisdiction, that the proceeding be instituted by a party with real interest in the subject-matter and against the party whose interest is adverse....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quackenbush v. City of Cheyenne
......135, 7 S.W.2d 836; Ex parte Hirsch's. Committee, 245 Ky. 132, 53 S.W.2d 211; Perry v. City, 160 Tenn. 102, 22 S.W.2d 359; Cummings v. Shipp, 156 Tenn. 595, 3 S.W.2d 1062; Harrell v. Mortgage Co., 161 Tenn. 646, 32 S.W.2d 1023; 162 Tenn. 371, 36 S.W.2d 888; Wilcox v. Board ......
-
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Smith, 55079
......Wolke, 66 Wis.2d 141, 223 N.W.2d 902, (1974). Where AG not made a party nor served with notice, court is without jurisdiction. Cummings v. Shipp, 156 Tenn. 595, 3 S.W.2d 1062 (1928). Action could not be maintained where Attorney General not served. Givner v. Cohen, 208 Md. 23, 116 ......
-
Wheeler v. Bullington
...... Among the cases holding that service on the attorney general is mandatory and jurisdictional are the following: Cummings v. Shipp, 156 Tenn. 595, 3 S.W.2d 1062, 1063; Cummings v. Beeler, 189 Tenn. 151, 223 S.W.2d 913, 916-917; Day v. Ostergard, 146 Pa.Super, 27, 21 A.2d ......
-
Wright v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co.
......Code sec. 8835; Perry v. City of Elizabethton, 160 Tenn. Page 463. 102, 22 S.W.2d 359; Miller v. Miller, 149 Tenn. 463, 487, 261 S.W. 965; Cummings v. Shipp, 156 Tenn. 595, 597, 3 S.W.2d 1062; Goetz v. Smith, supra. Therefore, both because of the failure to join the proper city ......