Cross v. Miller, s. 23186
| Decision Date | 06 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 23186,23187,s. 23186 |
| Citation | 221 Ga. 579,146 S.E.2d 279 |
| Parties | W. R. CROSS, Tax Assessor et al. v. William A. MILLER et al. William A. MILLER et al. v. W. R. CROSS, Tax Assessor, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Since there was evidence that the Board of Tax Assessors acted outside the scope of their authority, the trial judge did not err in granting an injunction to restrain their unauthorized action.
2. Alleged erroneous ruling not set forth in the enumeration of errors will not be considered.
3. While a judge has no power to grant a permanent injunction at an interlocutory hearing, where, as here, this is done, direction will be given by this court that the judgment be so changed as to be operative only until the final hearing or the further order of the court.
4. An equitable action will lie at the behest of a taxpayer to prevent the illegal expenditure of tax money by public officials.
Various named individuals as citizens, residents, property owners and taxpayers of Walker County brought this suit for injunction in Walker Superior Court against members of the Board of Tax Assessors, the Tax Commissioner and the Commissioner of Roads and Revenue of Walker County. The petition alleged that the Board and the Tax Commissioner, acting under the Board's instructions, were reducing the real estate valuations of all property in Walker County by a certain percentage for the announced purpose of effecting a tax reduction; that the Board was aware that the Board of Education was seeking a levy of 30 mills, the maximum amount, for educational purposes; and that the Board of Tax Assessors issued a letter order lowering the property valuation for tax purposes from 30% to 25% of the appraised value in order and for the purpose of controlling and fixing the amount of money received for educational purposes; that such change in valuation was attempted after the Board had completed its duties and had turned over the tax books to the Tax Commissioner.
The plaintiffs prayed that the Board and the Tax Commissioner be enjoined from reducing the valuation of the property and that the Commissioner of Roads and Revenue be enjoined from paying compensation to the Board and their clerical help for the performance of illegal acts in reducing the property assessments.
The defendants, as members of the Board, the Tax Commissioner, and the County Commissioner, filed separate general demurrers to the petition. The trial judge, in separate orders, overruled the general demurrers of the Tax Commissioner and the Board, and sustained the general demurrer of William L. Quinn, Commissioner of Roads and Revenue, dismissing the petition as to him. The case then came on for interlocutory hearing at which evidence was adduced by both sides. The trial judge found the preponderance of evidence lay with the plaintiffs and held in their favor. His order provided: 'the temporary injunction is made permanent and the defendants are individually and collectively restrained as prayed in the plaintiffs' petition.'
In Case No. 23186 the defendants appealed and enumerate error on the following grounds: that the orders overruling their general demurrers were erroneous; that the evidence failed to support the allegations of the petition and did not authorize equitable relief; that the court erred in granting a permanent injunction at the conclusion of the interlocutory hearing. In Case No. 23187 on cross appeal the plaintiffs complain of the order sustaining the County Commissioner's general demurrer.
F. H. Boney, Summerville, Paul W. Painter, Rossville, for appellant.
Frank M. Gleason, Rossville, Burton Brown, LaFayette, for appellee.
1. This case presents the anomalous situation of citizens and taxpayers complaining of a plan to reduce taxes. The pertinent facts are as follows: in 1964 the Board of Tax Assessors, in their process of 'equalizing' the tax valuations, took 30% of the appraised value of real property as the net taxable figure on an individual's return. On July 16, 1965, the Board in a letter to the Tax Commissioner stated that the 1965 net taxable value of 30% on all tax assessments in Walker County should be reduced 16 and 2/3 percent or to 25% of the property's appraised value. The letter instructed and authorized the Tax Commissioner, in the Board's behalf, to give such reduction on all returns which he Board turned over to him. The petition alleged that the Board had completed its work on all returns using 30% as the taxable figure and then attempted to change such figure to 25% after turning the books over to the Tax Commissioner. The petition also alleged that the purpose of these acts in reducing the real property valuation for tax purposes was to effectuate a tax reduction and to deprive the Board of Education of funds necessary to operate the schools of the county.
While a considerable portion of the evidence adduced on the interlocutory hearing is devoted to the proposition as to whether the Board ultimately set a figure of 30% and then changed to another figure or originally decided upon the lesser 25% valuation, we do not believe this issue to be dispositive of the cause. Under the view we take of the case the question for determination is whether the Board might set the taxable value of property for the purpose of reducing taxes.
The law prescribes: 'It shall be the duty of the board to see that all taxable property within the county is assessed and returned at its just and fair valuation and that valuations as between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sherman v. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors
...of tangible property.' "). However, this does not mean that the boards "can act with unlimited discretion...." Cross v. Miller, 221 Ga. 579, 581(1), 146 S.E.2d 279 (1965). The law still requires valuations to be just and fair between all taxpayers of the county. Cross v. Miller, supra. The ......
-
Turner v. Flournoy
...of the inaccuracy of expression. [Cit.]" McMillan v. Savannah Guano Co., supra at 761(2)(a), 66 S.E. 943. See also Cross v. Miller, 221 Ga. 579, 583(3), 146 S.E.2d 279 (1965); Hardy v. Thomas, 208 Ga. 752, 753(7), 69 S.E.2d 609 (1952); Strickland v. Griffin, supra at 552(5). Therefore, the ......
-
Nathan v. Duncan
...not the ground of exception nor is the enumeration of error based on that proposition, and it cannot be considered. Cross v. Miller, 221 Ga. 579, 582(2), 146 S.E.2d 279. 6. Errors are enumerated as to the charge, asserting that the court incorrectly charged on sudden emergency, on the matte......
-
Craig v. State
...6. Grounds of error not enumerated, though argued in the brief, can not be considered by this court on appeal. Cross v. Miller, 221 Ga. 579, 582(2), 146 S.E.2d 279; Hickman v. Frazier, 128 Ga.App. 552, 555(2), 197 S.E.2d 441. 'The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction for the trial and correcti......