City of Greenfield v. Callins

• Decision Date: 05 June 1953
• Citation: 259 S.W.2d 525,195 Tenn. 285,31 Beeler 285
• Parties: CITY OF GREENFIELD et al. v. CALLINS. 31 Beeler 285, 195 Tenn. 285, 259 S.W.2d 525
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 525

259 S.W.2d 525

CITY OF GREENFIELD et al. v. CALLINS.

31 Beeler 285, 195 Tenn. 285, 259 S.W.2d 525

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 5, 1953.

Phil B. Harris, Greenfield, and Allen J. Strawbridge, Dresden, for plaintiffs.

Harry E. Jones, Dresden, for defendant.

GAILOR, Justice.

This is an appeal by the City of Greenfield, from a judgment of the Circuit Court, remitting a fine assessed against Mrs. Katie Callins, by the Recorder's Court of Greenfield.

The original warrant upon which the proceeding was commenced against Mrs. Callins, charged her with a breach of ordinance No. 23 of the Official Code of Greenfield, in that she had failed and refused to obtain a city license for the operation of an automobile over the streets of Greenfield, as required by such ordinance. The pertinent part of said ordinance is as follows 'Sec. 1. Every person, a resident of the city, who owns or operates a motor vehicle in the city, and, every person a non-resident who comes regularly within the city in pursuit of some business or occupation and who operates regularly an automobile or other motor vehicle within the city, * * * shall, within five days after receiving a state license and number for operating the motor vehicle, under the laws of the State of Tennessee, or within five days after he shall begin such operation, annually register his motor vehicle with the city clerk, giving the name of the car, * * * and for such registration, shall pay an annual fee of $3.'

The following facts are not disputed: Mrs. Callins lives with her husband on a farm in Weakley County, outside the corporate limits of the City of Greenfield; she has a job in Greenfield, and drives there daily in an automobile. That is the automobile upon which the city has demanded the license, and the automobile is not owned by Mrs. Callins, but is owned by and licensed in the name of her husband, Thomas Callins.

The questions presented by the appeal are (1) that under a proper construction of the foregoing ordinance, Mrs. Callins is not liable to a fine, since she did not own the automobile in question, and (2) that the ordinance is ultra vires of the mayor and aldermen of the City of Greenfield in that it undertakes to impose a tax or license on nonresidents of the city and is so unconstitutional and void.

This Court will only pass upon the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute when such action is necessary to a disposition of the case. Van Dyke v. Thompson, 136 Tenn. 136, 189 S.W. 62; Beck v. Puckett, 2 Tenn.Cas. 490. Compare Richardson v. Young, 122 Tenn. 471, 125 S.W. 664.

On the present record, we do not reach the question of the constitutionality of the ordinance, since we hold that under a proper...