Anderson County, State ex rel., v. Aycock

• Decision Date: 14 December 1951
• Citation: Anderson County, State ex rel., v. Aycock, 29 Beeler 157, 193 Tenn. 157, 245 S.W.2d 182 (Tenn. 1951)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ANDERSON COUNTY v. AYCOCK et al. 29 Beeler 157, 193 Tenn. 157, 245 S.W.2d 182
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 182

245 S.W.2d 182

STATE ex rel. ANDERSON COUNTY v. AYCOCK et al.

29 Beeler 157, 193 Tenn. 157, 245 S.W.2d 182

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Dec. 14, 1951.

Walter E. Fischer, Clinton, for appellant.

Clyde W. Key, Knoxville, J. M. Underwood, Clinton, for appellees.

BURNETT, Justice.

This is a suit for the collection of delinquent taxes in Anderson County for the year 1948. There were many defendants, among whom was the Southern Railway Company. This Company paid all of its 1948 taxes except so much thereof as was assessed as 'salary' of twenty cents on $100.00 dollars. The Railway Company contended that this 'salary' tax was void. The Chancellor sustained this contention and the County has appealed.

The Railway Company filed its answer alleging that the Quarterly County Court of Anderson County had adopted the following tax rate for the year 1948:

'County             $0.25
                Public School        1.40
                Interest             0.10
                Sinking Fund         0.55
                Salary               0.20
                Old Age Assistance   0.10
                School Building      0.32
                                    -----
                  Total             2.92'
                

The answer further alleged that the Railway Company had paid 'the full tax generated by a tax rate of $2.72 upon the assessed valuation of its property, and it attacked the validity of the special levy of twenty cents for 'salary' upon three grounds, namely, (1) the payment of salaries of County officials and employees is a general County purpose, and the Quarterly County Court was without authority to levy a special tax therefor, (2) the purpose for which said purported special levy was made does not sufficiently appear upon the face of the resolution levying said tax, or otherwise upon the minutes of said Quarterly County Court, and (3) if the special character of said levy be disregarded and said twenty cent levy added to the levy of twenty-five cents made for general County purposes, the aggregate of these two items exceed the permissible levy of forty cents for general County purposes under Code Section 1045.1.'

The County filed its motion to strike the answer of the Railway Company on the ground that the Railway Company's sole remedy was under the provisions of Code Section 1790 et seq. which was pay the tax under protest and sue for its recovery.

Code Section 1790 et seq. applies only to 'revenue due the state.' A taxpayer may contest the validity of a County levy when he has paid the State tax without paying the tax under protest and filing suit for the recovery thereof. Louisville & N. R Co. v. State, 55 Tenn. 663; Saunders v. Russell, 78 Tenn. 293; City of Nashville v. Smith, 86 Tenn. 213, 6 S.W. 273; Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. Williams, 101 Tenn. 146, 46 S.W. 448; State National Bank v. City of Memphis, 116 Tenn. 641, 94 S.W. 606, 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 663; Nashville, C. St. L. & R. Co. v. Marion County, 120 Tenn. 347, 108 S.W. 1058.

'A County's power to tax is delegated [power] and strictly limited to the scope of the delegation.' State ex rel. Campbell County v. Delinquent Taxpayers, 183 Tenn. 64, 70, 191 S.W.2d 153, 155.

When a Quarterly County Court levies a special tax such tax is void unless it is made distinctly to appear that the levy is for an authorized purpose. Robbins v. Phillips, 175 Tenn. 568, 136 S.W.2d 507; Southern Railway Co. v. Hamblen County, 115 Tenn. 526, 92 S.W. 238.

The case below was tried on a stipulation of facts. The Quarterly County Court of Anderson County at its July, 1948, session, adopted a budget, a short summary of which is quoted from the answer of the Railway Company above. The only authority for the adoption of such a budget is found in the 'Cash Basis Act', Chapter 300 of the Public Acts of 1937. The public as well as the court are entitled to take this budget and lay it along side the tax levy adopted by the Quarterly County Court and see to what extent the public and the court are advised of the purposes of which the public is being taxed. Doing this we find that the budget contains five items, namely: School purposes, $4,000,000 odd dollars; Roads, $60,000 dollars; Debt Service (bonds and interest), $86,000 odd dollars; Old Age Assistance, $9,500 dollars; General County Purposes, $77,000 odd dollars making a total of $4,286,724.91.

The budget breaks down the proposed expenditures for 'general County purposes' into thirty-nine items, including the salaries of all County officers. These salaries are included in the total of the $77,385.00 dollars of budgeted expenditures for general County purposes. The budget does not contain any separate or additional item whatever calling for the payment of any salaries or requiring the levy of a special tax to pay any salaries.

The twenty-five cents levy for general County purposes actually produced revenues sufficient to enable the County to pay every budgeted item for general County purposes and to close the fiscal year with a surplus of an excess of $100,000 odd dollars. If the expenditures of $22,000 odd dollars were actually made from the 'salary' fund, really had been made from the general fund, the surplus remaining in the general fund at the end of the fical year would have been in excess of $85,000 dollars. The record does not show for what purpose these expenditures were made from the 'salary' fund but the record does disclose that the balance of $4,618.99 remained in the 'salary' fund at the close...