Little Rock & M.R. Co. v. Williams

• Decision Date: 02 April 1898
• Citation: Little Rock & M.R. Co. v. Williams, 46 S.W. 448, 101 Tenn. 146 (Tenn. 1898)
• Parties: LITTLE ROCK & M. R. CO. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

46 S.W. 448

101 Tenn. 146

LITTLE ROCK & M. R. CO. v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 2, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Shelby county; J. S. Galloway, Judge.

Action by the Little Rock & Memphis Railroad Company against J. J Williams, trustee.There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.Reversed.

W. G Weatherford, for appellant.

Geo. B Peters, for appellee.

WILKES J.

This is a suit to recover taxes paid for state, county, and municipal purposes.It is insisted the taxes were paid under duress and protest, and were illegal and unjust.The case was heard in the court below upon an agreed statement of facts.There was judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to recover back the amount of state taxes paid, but was not entitled to recover back the county and city taxes.From so much of the judgment as refused to give judgment for the county and city taxes paid by the plaintiff, it has appealed and assigned errors.

It appears that the tax complained of was assessed by the county assessor upon the steamer Gen. Pierson.It is agreed that this steamer is used exclusively in transferring freight and passengers across the Mississippi river at Memphis from the tracks of the Little Rock & Memphis Railroad in Arkansas to its terminal tracks in Memphis, and is the property of the railroad company.It is insisted that, being railroad property, it is not subject to assessment by the county assessor, but only by the state railroad assessors.It appears that it was not assessed by railroad assessors as "distributable property" of the railroad company.It does not appear whether it was by them assessed as "localized property" or not, and this is immaterial.The trial judge was of opinion that the tax was assessed by the county assessor without any authority of law and gave judgment that the plaintiff recover the portion paid to the state, inasmuch as it had been paid under protest, and sued for within 30 days thereafter, under the statute.

The court was evidently of opinion that, as to the county and city taxes, not having sued to recover back the amounts paid by it in 30 days, plaintiff would have no right of recovery and that its remedy, if any, was by certiorari.It has been held that the act prescribing that taxes due the state must be paid, and suit brought within 30 days if deemed illegal and unjust, has no application to county and city taxes.Saunders v. Russell, 10 Lea, 299...