Hutchins v. Williams
| Decision Date | 05 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 19521,19521 |
| Citation | 95 S.E.2d 674,212 Ga. 754 |
| Parties | Herschel H. HUTCHINS et al. v. Wheat WILLIAMS, Commissioner, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Sam Allen, Jas. R. Venable, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
George P. Dillard, W. Dan Greer, Decatur, M. H. Blackshear, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Herschel H. Hutchins, as a citizen and taxpayer of DeKalb County, on behalf of himself and other taxpayers similiarly situated or who may wish to intervene, brought a petition for injunction against certain named officials of DeKalb County, alleging in substance, that these officials have conspired to inflate the tax digest of the county to a point where the bonded indebtedness of the county may be increased beyond the legal limitation in an arbitrary and illegal manner without authority of law and without any factual basis, by illegally increasing the valuations of property in said county, which is discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the uniform-taxation provisions of the Constitution of Georgia, art. 7, § 1, par. 3, Code, § 2-5403, and of the equal-protection clause of the Federal Constitution, amend. 14, § 1. The petition further alleges divers violations of the law which are, in substance: that (1) petitioner's property had a fixed valuation established for tax purposes for the year 1954 by arbitration and the Board of Tax Assessors were, as a matter of law, required to assess it at this same value for 1956, there having been no improvements made since that time; (2) the actions of the assessors were void because changes and reassessments were made on certain classes of property by individual members of the board only, other members taking other classes for consideration, and the board was not legally constituted, due to the forced inactivity of one member whose salary was reduced to the minimum and certain privileges of the office were taken from him; (3) the taxpayers are not required to make their returns in accordance with law; (4) changes in valuations were not made by the Board of Tax Assessors in accordance with Code, § 92-6911, and such changes and increases were not based on fair market value, but represent an illegal attempt to raise additional revenue; and (5) the assessors refused to use a scale for the valuation of motor vehicles furnished by the State and cadastral surveys made and used in the past, but substituted other means and methods of fixing values, which resulted in the valuations being arbitrary and fanciful without any actual physical inspection or examination of real or personal property other than a mere casual examination by driving along the streets or roads where said property was located.
A rule nisi issued, temporarily restraining the defendants as prayed pending a hearing. Certain taxpayers were allowed to intervene. General and special demurrers were filed to the petition, and after a hearing the general demurrer was overruled and certain of the special demurrers were sustained with petitioner allowed to amend the petition in a given length of time. Thereafter other rulings were made on additional special demurrers filed after amendment, but no ruling was thereafter made on a renewal of the general demurrer. After an interlocutory hearing, the restraining order issued was revoked and the court refused to grant a temporary injunction. The exception here is to this judgment and also to the sustaining of the special demurrers to the petition.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Since the writ of error is to review a judgment, under authority of Code Ann.Supp. § 6-903, Ga.L.1946, pp. 726, 735; 1953, Nov.-Dec.Sess. pp. 279, 280, and Code § 55-202, wherein the lower court refused to grant a temporary injunction which is different from a review of a final judgment under Code Ann.Supp. § 6-701, Ga.L.1890-1, p. 82; 1946, pp. 726, 730; 1953, Nov.-Dec.Sess., pp. 440, 455, the defendants' (defendants in error) failure to except by direct bill or cross-bill of exceptions to the overruling of the general demurrer to the petition does not establish the law of the case to be that the petition alleges a cause of action, as contended by the plaintiff in error. See Code Ann.Supp. § 6-905, Ga.L.1953, Nov.-Dec.Sess., [212 Ga. 755] pp. 440, 453; Mechanics' & Traders' Bank of Rome v. Harrison, 68 Ga. 463; Hodgkins v. Marshall, 102 Ga. 191, 29 S.E. 174; Thompson v. Thompson, 124 Ga. 874, 875, 53 S.E. 507; Moody v. Cleveland Woolen Mills, 133 Ga. 741, 745-746, 66 S.E. 908; Williams Realty & Loan Co. v. Simmons, 188 Ga. 184, 185(4), 3 S.E.2d 580; Gaulding v. Gaulding, 210 Ga. 638, 642, 81 S.E.2d 830; Cook County v. Thornhill Wagon Co., 186 Ga. 835, 836-837, 199 S.E. 117; Shoaf v. Bland, 208 Ga. 709, 710, 69 S.E.2d 258. And for the same reason the exceptions as to the rulings on the special demurrers are premature and will not be considered. Shoaf v. Bland, 208 Ga. 709, 69 S.E.2d 258, supra; Ray v. Ray, 208 Ga. 733(2), 69 S.E.2d 261; Malcom v. Webb, 209 Ga. 735, 75 S.E.2d 801; Roughton v. Thiele Kaolin Co., 211 Ga. 15, 83 S.E.2d 590.
2. The granting and continuing of injunctions always rest in the sound discretion of the judge and this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearle Optical of Monroeville, Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry
...of the profession of optometry. They meet the requirements of Glustrom v. State, 206 Ga. 734, 736, 58 S.E.2d 534, Hutchins v. Williams, 212 Ga. 754, 95 S.E.2d 674, and Gartell v. McGahee, 216 Ga. 125, 114 S.E.2d 871, supra, that rules promulgated by administrative boards be within the frame......
-
Rogers v. DeKalb County Bd. of Tax Assessors
...only that the valuations be just and that they be fairly and justly equalized among the individual taxpayers (Hutchins v. Williams, 212 Ga. 754(4), 95 S.E.2d 674 (1956), '... according to the best information obtainable ...' (Code Ann. § 91A-1440(a)). " Kight v. Gilliard, 214 Ga. 445, 448-4......
-
Kight v. Gilliard
...year's finances of a political subdivision are involved, unless the law and the facts clearly demand such action.' Hutchins v. Williams, 212 Ga. 754(2), 95 S.E.2d 674, 676. See also Code, § 55-108; Wayne v. Mayor, etc., of city of Savannah, 56 Ga. 448; Hawkins v. Intendant &c., of Town of J......
-
Price v. Empire Land Co.
...to material issues of the case. Jones v. Johnson, 60 Ga. 260; Roughton v. Thiele Kaolin Co., 211 Ga. 15, 83 S.E.2d 590; Hutchins v. Williams, 212 Ga. 754, 95 S.E.2d 674. The reasons for this rule are succinctly and pointedly brought out in the case of Kirtland v. Mayor &c. of Macon, 62 Ga. ......