Reams v. Town of McMinnville

Decision Date12 March 1927
Citation291 S.W. 1067,155 Tenn. 222
PartiesREAMS v. BOARD OF MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF MCMINNVILLE.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Appeal from Chancery Court, Warren County; T. L. Stewart Chancellor.

Suit by R. M. Reams against the Board of Mayor and Aldermen of McMinnville. From an order sustaining part of defendant's grounds of demurrer, both parties appeal. Modified and affirmed.

See also, 284 S.W. 382.

COOK J.

The bill was filed to enjoin the board of mayor and aldermen from locating a high school building beyond the corporate limits of the town. It is charged in the bill that the board first purchased from the complainant and paid $7,500 for a school site within the corporate limits, and that the site so acquired is altogether suitable for school purposes.

It is also charged that there are other suitable locations within the corporate limits that can be acquired, but that the board abandoned the location on the property secured from complainant and acquired a site from one Ross near the town but beyond the corporate limits, on which it is proposed to erect the school building. It is charged that the abandonment of the site acquired from complainant and the failure to establish the school on that or other suitable lots within the corporate limits is an abuse of discretion and an unauthorized diversion of the school funds.

By the amended bill it is charged that the location of the school on the Ross lot will require the laying out and construction of additional sidewalks at great cost in order to make the location accessible, and that such approaches will entail an extra burden of taxation upon complainant and other taxpayers, and that complainant is specially injured by the act of the board of mayor and aldermen.

The chancellor overruled the several grounds of demurrer which challenged complainant's right to maintain a taxpayer's bill to enjoin the board from locating the school on the Ross lot, without showing special injury to him apart from the body of citizens of the town, but the court sustained other grounds of demurrer and dismissed the bill, holding that the board charged with the duty of providing school facilities for the town, and clothed with power to select a site and erect the building, could locate it within or without the corporate limits. Both parties appealed and have assigned error.

Through assignments of error the complainant insists that the chancellor erred in holding that the school could be located beyond the corporate limits, and the defendants insist that the chancellor should have held, upon the facts recited in the bill, that complainant cannot maintain the suit because he does not show that he will suffer any special injury apart from citizens of the town.

The right of taxpayers to resort to a court of equity to enjoin county and municipal authorities from transcending their lawful powers, or violating their legal obligations, is conceded by all the authorities if such conduct would impose a burden of taxation, for the imposition of such burden upon taxpayers is not common to citizens who pay no taxes. Colburn v. Chattanooga, 2 Shan. Cas. 22; Kennedy v. Montgomery County, 98 Tenn. 165, 38 S.W. 1075; Patton v. Chattanooga, 108 Tenn. 222, 65 S.W. 414.

The taxpayer may maintain the suit to restrain action by the municipal authorities only when they are acting illegally, and when the effect of their illegal action will impose an additional burden of taxation. 19 R. C. L. 1163.

If the conduct does not affect the private rights of the citizen but touches public rights common to all, the redress must be through the proper officials, because the bill can only be maintained to protect private rights if brought by the taxpayer who cannot maintain it in the assertion of a right common to all citizens of the town. Therefore the right of complainant to maintain the suit depends upon whether the board of mayor and aldermen,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Lewis v. Cleveland Mun. Airport Authority
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • September 11, 2008
    ...420-21 (Tenn.1901)); see also Badgett v. Rogers, 222 Tenn. 374, 436 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Tenn.1968); Reams v. Bd. of Mayor & Alderman of McMinnville, 155 Tenn. 222, 291 S.W. 1067, 1068 (Tenn.1927). As a policy justification this general rule, the Tennessee Supreme Court has stated as follows: O......
  • Parks v. Alexander
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 1980
    ...to taxpayers when an official is diverting public funds from their designated and authorized use. In Reams v. Board of Mayor and Aldermen of McMinnville, 155 Tenn. 222, 291 S.W. 1067 (1927), a taxpayer sought to enjoin the Mayor and Board from locating a school outside the corporate limits ......
  • Wright v. Nashville Gas & Heating Co.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1946
    ... ... Patton v. Chattanooga, ... supra; Pope v. Dykes, 116 Tenn. 230, 93 S.W. 85; ... Reams v. Board of Mayor and Aldermen, 155 Tenn. 222, ... 225, 291 S.W. 1067; State ex rel. v. Brown, 159 ... ...
  • England v. City of Knoxville
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • April 18, 1946
    ... ... Reams v. Board of Mayor & Aldermen of ... McMinnville, 155 Tenn. 222, 225, 291 S.W. 1067, 1068: ... 'If ... right common to all citizens of the town.' ...          The ... complainants proceed upon the theory, and only upon the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT