Tennessee Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 18 May 1940 |
| Parties | TENNESSEE MINING & MANUFACTURING CO. v. COOPER, Governor, et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Davidson County; R. B. C. Howell Chancellor.
Petition for certiorari by the Tennessee Mining & Manufacturing Company against Prentice Cooper, Governor, and others, to review the action of the State Board of Equalization in the matter of the assessment of petitioner's property in Anderson County. From a decree dismissing the petition, the petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Norman B. Morrell and J. W. Cooper, both of Knoxville, for plaintiff.
Roy H Beeler, Atty. Gen., and W. F. Barry and Dudley Porter, Jr. Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants.
Petition for certiorari was filed herein to review the action of the state board of equalization in the matter of the assessment of the petitioner's property in Anderson County. The chancellor dismissed the petition and an appeal was taken to this court.
The petitioner is the owner of about 54,000 acres of land in Scott, Campbell and Anderson Counties. About 20,000 acres of this land is located in Anderson County. It is concerning the assessment in Anderson County alone that complaint is made.
The tax assessor in Anderson County fixed the value of petitioner's property therein at $160,000. On appeal the county board of equalization reduced the assessment to $158,000. On further appeal to the state board of equalization, the latter tribunal affirmed the action of the county board of equalization. The petitioner insists that the fair valuation of its property in Anderson County is $107,600.
The chancellor was of the opinion that a mere question of valuation was involved and that the conclusion of the state board of equalization upon this matter was final. This ruling was consistent with many previous decisions of this court applying statutory provisions giving finality to valuation fixed by municipal and state boards of equalization. The rule has been that a statute making conclusive the value fixed by such board of equalization would be enforced so long as such board did not act illegally, fraudulently, or in excess of its jurisdiction. Tomlinson v. Board of Equalization, 88 Tenn. 1, 12 S.W. 414, 6 L.R.A. 207; Savage Co. v. City of Knoxville, 167 Tenn. 642, 72 S.W.2d 1057; Anderson v. Memphis, 167 Tenn. 648, 72 S.W.2d 1059; Treadwell Realty Co. v. City of Memphis, 173 Tenn. 168, 116 S.W.2d 997, and other cases.
That such has been the rule is conceded by counsel for the petitioner, but it is insisted that the provision of the present Code with reference to valuations fixed by the board of equalization differs from previous statutes before the court.
Section 1456 of the Code is as follows:
This section of the Code is based primarily on section 14, chapter 113, of the Pub. Acts of 1921, which contains this language: "The action of the State Board of Equalization *** shall be final and conclusive as to all matters passed upon by said Board, and such taxes shall be collected upon the valuation found and fixed by said Board."
Previous statutory provisions considered by the court were substantially the same as the provision contained in the Act of 1921 just above set out.
It will be observed that the last sentence of section 1456 of the Code is identical with the language quoted from the Act of 1921, except that the Code adds to the first clause of the last sentence of this section the words "subject to judicial review." It is accordingly urged that, since the adoption of the Code, a valuation fixed...
To continue reading
Request your trial