Cox v. City of Bristol

• Decision Date: 14 November 1944
• Docket Number: 4.
• Citation: 187 S.W.2d 637,28 Tenn.App. 136
• Parties: COX v. CITY OF BRISTOL.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

187 S.W.2d 637

28 Tenn.App. 136

COX v. CITY OF BRISTOL.

No. 4.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

November 14, 1944

Certiorari Denied by Supreme CourtMay 5, 1945.

Appeal in Error from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; Shelburne Ferguson, Judge.

Proceeding on petition for certiorari by John I. 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 assessment approved by the board, both petitioner and the City of Bristol appeal in error, and the City of Bristol moves to dismiss the writ of error filed by petitioner.

Motion to dismiss overruled, and judgment reversed and cause remanded to circuit court to be remanded to Board of Equalization.

On Petition for Rehearing.

Joe A. Caldwell, of Bristol, for plaintiff in error.

Curtin & Haynes and E. M. Woolsey, all of Bristol, for defendant in error.

McAMIS Judge.

In this case the Circuit Judge reviewed on petition for certiorari a proceeding before the Equalization Board of the City of Bristol, found that the Board had not 'acted within the provisions of the law' and reduced the assessment approved by the Board from $31,700 to $15,000.Both parties have filed the record here for writ of error.

The City of Bristol has moved for a dismissal of the writ of error filed by Governor Cox because no motion for a new trial was filed and because no bill of exceptions was preserved and filed.The motion must be overruled.The petition for writ of error challenges the judgment of the trial court fixing the assessment at $15,000 as illegal and void because beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.This question arises upon the technical record and a bill of exceptions and a motion for a new trial are unnecessary to secure a review of this question.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 Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry.,148 Tenn. 676, 257 S.W. 91.

As we understand the petitions for writ of error both Governor Cox and the City take the position that, having held the action of the Board of Equalization void, the Court was without authority to hear proof and fix and assessed value on the property, Governor Cox insisting that a former valid assessment of $10,000 for a prior year would become the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation.

Whether we have correctly interpreted the petitions or not, we think the learned trial court was in error in undertaking to fix the assessed value of the property after a trial de novo.

Chapter 81 of the Private Acts of Tennessee for the year 1919 authorized the Board of Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Bristol to elect an assessor and the Mayor was authorized to appoint a Board of Equalization which, in turn, was authorized to fix rules for hearings before the Board.The Act expressly provides that the action of the Board of Equalization shall be final.In reviewing the assessment the Board was performing an administrative function and the statute provides for no appeal from its decisions but, on the contrary, provides in clear and unmistakable language that its decisions shall be final.

In Tomlinson v. Board of Equalization,88 Tenn. 1, 12 S.W. 414, 6 L.R.A. 207, the Court considered the effect of Code, Section, 8989 (then 3123), upon the right to secure a judicial review of findings of a Board of Equalization whose decisions were made final by the statute and it was held that the writ of certiorari would not lie as a substitute for appeal.It results that the writ must be limited to its common law function of securing a judicial determination of the legality of the Board's action.

City of Knoxville v. Connors,139 Tenn. 45, 201 S.W. 133, andBinford v. Carline,9 Tenn.App. 364, though not tax suits, seem to us to compel the conclusion that the trial court was without authority to consider the merits of the assessment approved by the Board or to enter judgment on the proof introduced in the Circuit Court.In the Connors casethe trial court was called upon to review on petition for certiorari the action of a commission whose findings were, by statute, made final.It was held that the court could only stay an illegal proceeding and was without jurisdiction to enter judgment on the merits.The opinion in Binford v. Carline contains an exhaustive review of our cases distinguishing between the statutory writ of certiorari and the common law writ.Certiorari was employed in that case to review the action of the Board of Censors of the City of Memphis whose action was made final by the statute creating the Board.The trial judge undertook to pass upon the issues de novo.It was held that the court could only determine the legality of the action of the Board and was without authority to hear the case on its merits.See alsoW. J. Savage Co. v. City of Knoxville,167 Tenn. 642, 72 S.W.2d 1057;Nashville, C. & St. L. Railway v. Browning,176 Tenn. 245, 140 S.W.2d 781;Treadwell Realty Co. v. City of Memphis,173 Tenn. 170, 116 S.W.2d 997.

We perceive no distinction in principle between the cases cited and the case under consideration and it results that the assignments directed to the action of the court in fixing the assessed value of the property at $15,000 must be sustained.This does not mean, however, that the former assessment of $10,000, if such was the assessment, will be ipso facto reinstated.We think the proper practice would have been for the court, upon finding the action of the Board illegal, to remand for a proper hearing before the Board.

The foregoing disposes of the insistence of the taxpayer and we proceed to a consideration of the assignments of the City of Bristol.The first assignment, already considered in principle, is that the court had no right to substitute its valuation for that of the assessor and the Board of Equalization in the absence of fraud.As we have seen the ocurt has no power in any...