Reams v. Town of McMinnville

• Decision Date: 05 June 1926
• Parties: REAMS ET UX. v. BOARD OF MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF TOWN OF MCMINNVILLE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

284 S.W. 382

153 Tenn. 408

REAMS ET UX. v. BOARD OF MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF TOWN OF MCMINNVILLE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 5, 1926

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

Taxpayers' suit by R. M. Reams and wife against the Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the Town of McMinnville. Decree for defendants on demurrer, and complainants appeal. Decree modified, and bill dismissed.

J. J Finley and Ewell & Ewell, all of Manchester, for appellants.

Turner & Haston and F. H. Mercer, all of McMinnville, and Roberts & Roberts, of Nashville, for appellees.

McKINNEY J.

The bill in this cause was filed by R. M. Reams and wife, Jessie C. Reams, who sue individually and in their own behalf as taxpayers of the town of McMinnville, and also in behalf of all the other taxpayers in said town, to enjoin the board of mayor and aldermen of the town of McMinnville from erecting a high school building on what is known as the Ross lot, and to require them to erect said building on what is known in the record as the Reams lot.

The bill also sought to have a deed executed by complainants to defendants reformed so as to allege, as a part of the consideration, the agreement on the part of defendants to erect a high school building on said lot, and to use said lot solely for school purposes.

Subsequently an amended bill was filed, and the bill, as amended, was demurred to upon many grounds.

The pleadings are voluminous, and we can briefly dispose of the questions raised without setting them out in detail. In fact we find little controversy either as to the facts or the law affecting the questions involved.

It is conceded by all parties that, by virtue of chapter 50 of the First Extra Session of the Legislature of 1913, the defendants were authorized to issue bonds for school purposes, after having first submitted same to the voters of the town of McMinnville. It was agreed that such an election was held, and that the defendants were authorized to, and did, issue $65,000 of bonds for the purpose of acquiring a site and erecting a high school building thereon. It is also agreed that the defendants have the sole and exclusive power and right, under the charter of McMinnville, to select the site upon which to erect a building, to determine the character of the building to be erected, and to superintend its construction. It is also agreed that some division existed as to the best location for said high school, and that the defendants submitted that question to the voters, in an election called for that purpose, as to which of three sites afforded the best location; the result being 482 votes for the Reams lot, 329 for the Ross lot, and 99 for the Cantrell lot. It is also conceded that this was in no sense a legal election, that it was not binding on the defendants, but that it was only advisory, and that the defendants had a perfect right to locate the said school independently of the wishes of the voters as expressed in said preferential election.

After this election was held, the defendants purchased from complainants the Reams lot, taking a warranty deed therefor in the usual form containing the general covenants of warranty, and paid complainants therefor $7,500 in cash.

Subsequently, and before steps had been taken with respect to the construction of said building, the owner of the Ross lot, containing 12 acres, agreed to donate same to the city, if the defendants would locate said building thereon.

It also appears from an ordinance passed by the city that they were advised by their architect that the building, as planned, could be erected much cheaper on the Ross lot than it could on the Reams lot, and that, in order to construct same on the Reams lot, it would have to reduce the size and character of building desired considerably.

In this situation the city repealed its former ordinance, and decided to erect said building on the Ross lot, whereupon the complainants filed the bill in this cause enjoining them from proceeding further.

It is said that, having once exercised their discretion by selecting the Reams lot, they were without power or authority to change the location to some other lot.

No authority has been cited in support of this proposition, and it would be a very unfortunate situation if a board were held to be without power to change a location where it deemed same advantageous to the city. Certainly, in theory, at least, the city would be benefited by the change, and we can conceive of no ground upon which any individual or individuals could complain. Surely not upon the ground that it would be to their pecuniary advantage to confine the city to the first location selected.

It is alleged in the bill that the defendants exercised an erroneous discretion in selecting the Ross lot, it being alleged that the Reams lot is the more desirable, and that the building can be more advantageously, and, perhaps, as cheaply, erected thereon as it could on the Ross lot.

The decisions are uniform to the effect that the courts cannot, and will not, review the discretion of the city authorities in such matters, and it is equally well settled that they will interfere by injunction only where it clearly appears that the authorities are acting corruptly or fraudulently.

In the original bill no fraud was charged, but in the amended bill the allegations as to fraud are as follows:

"Compl

...