State ex rel. Smith v. City of Chattanooga

• Decision Date: 23 November 1940
• Citation: 144 S.W.2d 1096,176 Tenn. 642
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SMITH et al. v. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

144 S.W.2d 1096

176 Tenn. 642

STATE ex rel. SMITH et al. v. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 23, 1940

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hamilton County; J. Lon Foust Chancellor.

Suit by the State, on the relation of Stanton E. Smith and others against the City of Chattanooga, Tenn., and others, for writ of mandamus to compel payment of salaries and tax levies. From a decree for defendants, complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

Cooke Swaney & Cooke and Thompson & Ballard, all of Chattanooga for complainants.

J. W. Anderson, of Chattanooga, for defendants.

McKINNEY Justice.

Complainants allege in their bill that they are and have been employed as teachers in the Chattanooga schools for a number of years; that the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee by Chapter 621, Private Acts of 1935, as amended by Chapter 83, Private Acts of 1935, Extra Session, provided a minimum schedule of salaries for all teachers employed in said schools; that defendants have refused to pay complainants and other teachers the minimum salaries provided in said Acts, and that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the Mayor and Commissioners of Chattanooga to pay same, and to levy a tax for that purpose.

Defendants challenge the validity of these Acts, and insist that in no event are complainants entitled to the relief sought.

Companion bills were enacted by the Legislature in 1935 providing similar salaries for teachers in Hamilton County. These latter Acts were held violative of Article 1, Section 8, and Article 11, Section 8, of the Constitution of Tennessee in State ex rel. v. Hamilton County, 170 Tenn. 371, 95 S.W.2d 618. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case we think the Acts now before us are unconstitutional if they are in conflict with the General Educational Act, Chapter 115, Public Acts of 1925, which applies to city as well as county schools, with an exception to be noted later. The involved constitutional provisions apply to municipalities as well as to counties. Malone v. Williams, 118 Tenn. 390, 103 S.W. 798, 121 Am.St.Rep. 1002; Williams v. Taxing District, 84 Tenn. 531, 16 Lea 531; Hatcher and Lee v. State, 80 Tenn. 368, 12 Lea 368; City of Memphis v. Fisher, 68 Tenn. 239, 9 Baxt. 239; Mayor of Alexandria v. Dearmon, 34 Tenn. 104, 2 Sneed 104.

The exception referred to above is contained in Section 15 of the General Education Act, Section 2384 of the Code, which is as follows: "Cities and incorporated towns operating systems of public schools under provisions of their respective charters and levying an additional elementary school tax for operating expenses other than for grounds, buildings, and equipment are herein empowered to continue the operation of said system of public schools under the provisions of their respective charters. Provided, that no transfer of children between city and county schools shall be made except by agreement between the respective Boards of Education."

It is the contention of complainants that the City of Chattanooga is operating its schools under the provisions of its charter by levying annually "an additional elementary school tax for operating expenses other than for grounds, buildings, and equipment," thus taking it out of the general law.

The chancellor in a full written opinion held against this contention, as did this court in an unpublished opinion filed at Knoxville in June, 1936, in the cause of Atwater et al. v Hamilton County, Hamilton equity. In that cause the court had under consideration "The County Public...