State v. Hannum

• Decision Date: 08 December 1928
• Citation: 11 S.W.2d 858
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CITY OF ALCOA v. HANNUM.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

11 S.W.2d 858

STATE ex rel. CITY OF ALCOA v. HANNUM.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 8, 1928.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Blount County.

Consolidated suits by the State, on the relation of the City of Alcoa, against Mrs. W. Y. C. Hannum. From decree for complainant for part of the relief sought, both parties appeal. Reversed, and suits dismissed.

Gamble, Crawford & Goddard, of Maryville, for complainant.

Cates, Smith, Tate & Long, of Knoxville, for defendant.

SWIGGART, J.

Four suits were began against Mrs. Hannum, the appellant herein, to collect municipal taxes for the years 1922-1925, inclusive, all of which were consolidated by the chancellor for the purpose of trial.

The chancellor rendered a decree for the city for the taxes claimed for the years 1922, 1924, and 1925, but denied the city's claim for the 1923 taxes, on the ground that the assessment for that year did not contain a sufficient description of the property assessed. Both parties have appealed to this court.

The assessment involved is of a certain tract of farm land, included within the corporate limits of the city of Alcoa, by its Charter Act of 1919 (Priv. Acts 1919, c. 510), but excluded therefrom by an amendment to the charter in 1921. Private Acts 1921, c. 697.

It is conceded that if the charter amendment of 1921 was constitutionally enacted by the General Assembly, the consolidated causes must fail; but it is contended for the city that the legislative journals for the 1921 session of the General Assembly affirmatively show that the amendment was not enacted as a law.

The enrolled copy of the 1921 amendment, on file in the office of the Secretary of State, contains the signature of the respective Speakers of the Senate and the House of Representatives, authenticating the act as having been passed on April 5, 1921; and the signature of the Governor, attesting his approval, appears thereon.

The legislative journals recite that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in which the bill originated, announced in open session that he had affixed his signature thereto, that it was thereupon transmitted to the Senate, and that the Speaker of the Senate announced that he had signed the bill in open session. The Journal of the House of Representatives for April 7, 1921, recites that the bill was returned to the House by the Governor, with his approval.

The passage of the bill in the House of Representatives on three readings is duly noted on the Journal, and the Senate Journal recites its passage on first and second readings.

The defect in the legislative history of the bill, which the city of Alcoa insists is fatal to its validity, is that the Senate Journal for April 5, 1921, recites that the bill was tabled, and contains no further reference to the bill until, on April 6th, the Journal recites that the bill was transmitted to the Senate from the House for the signature of the speaker, and was on that date signed in open session by the Speaker of the Senate. It is also pointed out for the city that the House Journal for April 5th contains a message, signed by the clerk of the Senate: "I am directed to return to the House House Bill No. 1262, to amend chapter 510, Private Acts 1919, tabled by the Senate."

The bill in question having been authenticated as enacted by the Legislature, by the signatures of the two speakers, affixed in open session, and by the approval of the Governor, every reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the regularity of its passage, and this presumption can be defeated only by an affirmative recitation of the legislative journal to the contrary. Kefaurer v. Spurling, 154 Tenn. 613, 290 S. W. 14; House v. Creveling, 147 Tenn. 589, 250 S. W. 357; State ex rel. v. Davis, 146 Tenn. 287, 240 S. W. 762; Wilson v. State, 143 Tenn. 55, 224 S. W. 168; Nelson v. Haywood County, 91 Tenn. 609, 20 S. W. 1; State ex rel. v. Algood, 87 Tenn. 166, 10 S. W. 310; Brewer v. Mayor and Aldermen of Huntingdon, 86 Tenn. 732, 9 S. W. 166. Many other cases sustaining this rule are reviewed in the cases above cited.

In Brewer v. Mayor and Aldermen of Huntingdon, supra, the presumption from the signatures of the speakers and the Governor was held to have been overcome by an affirmative recitation of the Journal of the House of Representatives that the bill was rejected.

However, in State ex rel. v. Davis, supra, it was held by this court that the presumption arising from the signatures of the Speakers and the approval of the Governor was not overcome by the fact that the House Journal recited that the bill failed...