Board of Equalization v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry.
| Decision Date | 26 November 1923 |
| Citation | 257 S.W. 91,148 Tenn. 676 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ET AL. v. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Davidson County; A. B. Neil, Judge.
Certiorari by the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway to review action of the Board of Equalization and another. From judgment for petitioner, the Board of Equalization appeals. On motion to dismiss appeal. Motion denied.
Joseph Higgins, of Nashville, for appellant.
Fitzgerald Hall, of Nashville, and Seth M. Walker, of Lebanon, for appellee.
Upon a petition alleging illegal assessment of its property, the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway prayed and obtained writs of certiorari and supersedeas, and the action of the Railroad and Public Utilities Commission and the Board of Equalization in making the assessment was reviewed in the circuit court of Davidson county.
In obedience to the command of the writ of certiorari it was the duty of the Board to make a transcript of the proceedings and transmit it as the return to the writ, so as to bring before the reviewing court a complete record of the proceedings, including the evidence heard in aid of the assessment. This record was first presented to the court under a stipulation of counsel, and later made a part of the return by order of the court.
Upon a review of the record thus introduced the trial court found that the statute was not observed, that the assessment was illegal, and quashed it. In reaching a conclusion as to the taxable value of the railroad's property, sections 3 and 4 of chapter 3, Acts 1919, required the Public Utilities Commission to assemble evidence and review a diversity of facts, and, among other things, distinguish distributable property from localized property, and determine the taxable value of each. The value of distributable property was to be found after considering track mileage, betterments, capital stock, franchises, gross receipts, market value of stocks and the bonded debt of the company as provided in the act.
The conclusion of the trial court was a deduction from facts embodied in the record of the evidence and proceedings of the Board. By no other method could the validity of the assessment be determined.
From the judgment of the court the Board prayed an appeal. After the record was filed appellee moved to dismiss the appeal and affirm because no motion for a new trial was made or filed as required by the rules of the court. Appellant resists the motion to dismiss, saying it is too broad, since the cause is up for review of error apparent upon the face of the record.
The appeal does not bring the cause here for trial de novo, but for review of errors only. In Railroad v. Johnson, 114 Tenn. 639, 88 S.W. 169, it is said that the jurisdiction of this court is exclusively appellate, and that it can only review matters which the record shows have been considered and adjudged by the trial court. The errors thus reviewed and corrected, the court said, fall within two classes: First errors which appear upon the face of the record proper, and, second, errors committed by the trial court in acting upon motions for new trial.
Under the first head fall erroneous rulings of the trial court in sustaining or overruling motions and demurrers which challenge the sufficiency of pleadings and process; and under the second, errors committed in overruling or allowing motions for new trial. We have, at some length, indicated the facts necessarily reviewed by the trial court. They were facts without regard to how presented, and the trial judge was called upon to apply to them deliberative tests, and thereby reach a conclusion. By rule repeatedly announced, in order to review a judgment of the trial court thus reached, a motion for new trial is required.
The reason underlying such rule springs from administrative necessity, which, without narrowing the channels through which substantial rights may be maintained, would circumscribe the field for naked forensic combat. Whoever complains of error in the conclusion of a court upon the facts is supposed best able to indicate the error, and should first present it to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Porter
... ... errors insofar as these involved a consideration of the ... facts. See Board v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Railway, ... 148 Tenn. 676, 257 S.W. 91 ... ...
-
City of Knoxville v. State ex rel. Hayward
...Court Rule 14 (5). Having made no motion for a new trial, errors apparent upon the record proper are alone open to review. Board of Equalization v. Railroad, supra. The assignments error made here challenging the facts as found by the trial judge must, under the above rule, be overruled. Un......
-
Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty. v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC
...of the appellate courts by limiting and defining the issues for review." Id. at 141-42 (quoting Board of Equalization v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 148 Tenn. 676, 680, 257 S.W. 91, 93 (1923)). More importantly, though, motions for a new trial provide the trial judge with "an opportunity to......
-
Cox v. City of Bristol
... ... Cox against City of ... Bristol to review action of the Equalization Board of the ... City of Bristol approving assessment of realty. From a ... judgment reducing the ... Wise Co. v ... Morgan, 101 Tenn. 273, 48 S.W. 971, 44 L.R.A. 548; ... Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Smith, 147 Tenn ... 453, 455, 249 S.W. 377; Board of Equalization v ... ...