Briscoe v. McMillan

• Decision Date: 19 February 1907
• Citation: Briscoe v. McMillan, 100 S.W. 111, 117 Tenn. 115 (Tenn. 1907)
• Parties: BRISCOE ET AL. v. MCMILLAN ET AL.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

100 S.W. 111

117 Tenn. 115

BRISCOE ET AL. v. MCMILLAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 19, 1907

Appeal from Chancery Court, Knox County; Jos. W. Sneed, Chancellor.

Bill by Daniel Briscoe and others against John E. McMillan and others.From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal.Affirmed.

Jourolmon Welcker & Smith and Templeton & Templeton, for appellants.

J. C Ford, J. W. Caldwell, and Chas. T. Cates, Jr., for appellees.

McALISTER J.

This bill was exhibited by certain citizens and taxpayers of Knox county against the county trustee and county court clerk of said county and the comptroller of the city of Knoxville for the purpose of enjoining said officers from assessing and collecting taxes on the property of complainants and other taxpayers of Knox county upon the basis of an assessment made by the state board of equalization.The theory of the bill is that the said assessment made by the state board of equalization is illegal and absolutely void.The second object of the bill is to maintain the validity of the assessment made by the county tax assessor for the year 1906 as modified by the county board of tax assessors.The chancellor sustained a demurrer interposed by defendants and dismissed the bill.Complainants appealed, and have assigned as error the action of the chancellor.

The material allegations of the bill are that George C. Cardwell, tax assessor of Knox county, assessed for taxation for the year 1906 the property of complainants and the other taxpayers of said county for state, county, and municipal taxation.It is alleged that by this assessment the said county tax assessor increased the valuation of property in Knoxville $5,000,000 in excess of the assessment for the year 1904.It is then alleged that the county board of equalization, representing also the city of Knoxville, met in July, 1906, and, after hearing testimony from time to time, reduced the assessment made by County Assessor Cardwell $1,500,000, leaving still an increase over 1904 of $3,500,000.

It is next alleged that A. D. Collier, attempting to act as a citizen, and also officially as county judge and financial agent of Knox county, appealed to the state board of equalization from the action of the county board in reducing this assessment, and that subsequently S. G. Heiskell, citizen and taxpayer of the county, joined in said appeal.Complainants state they have no copy of the appeal or paper filed with the state board by Messrs. Collier and Heiskell.However, on July 23, 1906, the state board of equalization met at Knoxville, and remained in session for the greater part of two days, considering said appeal and hearing evidence and statements in regard thereto.But complainants charge that said state board during said session did not hear either evidence or statements in regard to the valuation of more than 30 pieces of property, which were contained in Exhibit A and which had been acted on by said county board of assessors.

Complainants further charge that the appeal or complaint of Messrs. Collier and Heiskell only related to property which had been acted upon by the county board of equalizers, and the assessment thereof reduced.It is further alleged that the state board, in addition to the statements and evidence heard by it in regard to specific property, also heard other statements and testimony in regard to the general percentage of values, and this other general testimony included the testimony and statements of Assessor Cardwell.These statements, it is alleged, were as a rule opinions of the witnesses, and these opinions showed that Cardwell, assessor, had assessed properties in amounts ranging from 25 to 90 per cent. of the actual value of the property assessed for the year 1906.Complainants, however, allege that no proof whatever was heard about any of the specific property of complainants, which had been reduced by the county board from the valuation placed upon it by the county assessor; nor was any specific proof heard by said state board of equalization in regard to the valuation of any other property contained in Exhibit A, and which had been assessed by the county assessor and reduced by the county board.It is alleged that the county board equalized assessments on about 600 specific pieces of property in said county.Complainants allege that out of more than 600 pieces of property which the county board, with great labor and pains of investigation, equalized for purposes of taxation for the year 1906, the state board only heard proof or statements in regard to about 30 pieces of property.Complainants distinctly allege that said state board heard no proof whatever or statements in reference to any of the said property or assessments of complainants.

The bill further shows that on August 13, 1906, the state board of equalization, sitting at Nashville, or a majority of them, reported to and filed with the county clerk of Knox county its action in regard to the assessment of property in Knox county in the following words, marked "Exhibit C" to the bill: "It is ordered that, with the exceptions hereafter noted, [the] various properties reduced in assessment by the county board from the assessment made on the same by the county tax assessor be restored to the value placed on same by the county tax assessor."The exceptions mentioned in this order of said board are set out in the report, but none of them relate either to the persons or property of any of complainants.It is then charged that the action of the state board, so far as it related to property which had been reduced in valuation by the county board of equalizers, was substantially a raising of assessments upon property in Knox county by a per cent. and upon an attempted per cent. valuation.

Complainants further alleged that said Exhibit C, already copied herein, contains a full, true, and perfect copy of the entire action taken by said state board of equalization in reference to property in Knox county.The state board of equalization made no record or minute, and pronounced no order or judgment or finding, in reference to said assessment of property in Knox county, except what appears in said Exhibit C. Complainants then alleged that said state board of equalization did not make its findings and take such action and raise said assessments in the manner required by law; and complainants charge that said action of the state board of equalization, as appears from said Exhibit C, was illegal and void.

It is alleged that the reductions made by the county board of equalizers upon property in Knox county, "including the property of your complainants, show in point of fact the present cash value of said property."

The complainants further allege that the assessments made by Cardwell, county tax assessor, and approved by the state board of equalization, exceed the present actual cash value of the properties mentioned on the 10th day of February, 1906, when the same were assessable by law.

It is further alleged that the state board acted upon the testimony of Assessor Cardwell, and have upon the face of their action attempted to fix the assessment upon the basis of 70 per cent. of the actual cash value of the property; but it is admitted the state board has not assessed the property at a 70 per cent. valuation.It is alleged, however, that, if the assessor made assessments upon the basis of 70 per cent., he violated his oath of office, and that therefore the action of the state board approving his action was illegal.

It is alleged that Cardwell admitted in his testimony before the state board his ignorance of the present cash value of each specific piece of property inquired about, and it is charged that he was in fact ignorant of the same.It is further charged that the state board made no effort to assess or equalize said property by classification of properties, and by wards, civil districts, or counties, as required by law, and that, in attempting to fix correct valuations of property in Knox county, they made no comparison with like property in other counties.

It is then alleged that higher valuations were placed upon Knox county properties than upon like properties in other counties.Therefore it is charged that the action of the state board amounts to an unlawful discrimination against Knox county.

The complainants further alleged that the state board of equalization, in considering assessments in Knox county, made no investigation of, and heard no statements or evidence in relation to, any assessments or valuations of any property, except about 30 pieces of property which had been acted upon and reduced by said county board of equalizers, and made no investigation whatever of a certain number of pieces of property, viz., about 12,000 or more, in said county, which are subject to taxation, as said board should have done, and as they are required to do by the statute.

This is a substantial statement of the material allegations of the bill, which is filed by complainants on behalf of themselves, as well as on behalf of all other citizens, property owners and taxpayers of Knox county, whose names and property appear upon said Exhibit A to the bill, and whose property and valuations of property were reduced by said county board of equalizers.

The prayer of the bill is that the action of the state board of equalizers be declared illegal and void, and that an injunction issue requiring the county clerk to certify to the trustee of the county and to the comptroller of the city a tax list in accordance with the action of the county board, and that the county trustee and city comptroller be prohibited from collecting taxes upon valuations in excess of those filed by the county board of equalizers.

The defendants jointly...