Treadwell Realty Co. v. City of Memphis

• Decision Date: 27 May 1938
• Parties: TREADWELL REALTY CO. v. CITY OF MEMPHIS.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

116 S.W.2d 997

173 Tenn. 168

TREADWELL REALTY CO. v. CITY OF MEMPHIS.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 27, 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; H. W. Laughlin, Judge.

Certiorari proceeding by the Treadwell Realty Company against the City of Memphis to review the action of the Memphis Board of Equalization fixing the value of the property of the Treadwell Realty Company for assessment. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to and dismissing the petition for certiorari, the Treadwell Realty Company appeals.

Affirmed.

Ernest Williams, Jr., and Royden Dixon, both of Memphis, for appellant.

William Gerber, K. C. Larkey, and EdKuhn, all of Memphis, for appellee.

CHAMBLISS Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court sustaining a demurrer to and dismissing a petition for certiorari to review the action of the Memphis Board of Equalization fixing the value of petitioner's property for assessment. The City tax assessor had appraised the value at $114,500.00. Upon application for review to the Board of Equalization that body confirmed this appraisal.

Petitioner charged that the property had a fair cash value of $35,000.00 only; and that the refusal of the Board of Equalization to adopt this valuation, at which the property had been recently sold and purchased by petitioner at a fair sale, after full advertisement and publicity, and special efforts to secure a larger price, "in legal effect is the equivalent of intention or fraudulent purpose to overvalue the property"; also, that the value fixed by the Board "amounts to confiscation of petitioner's property and constitutes the taking of petitioner's property without due process of law", all of which is in violation of our statute providing that all property "shall be assessed at its actual cash value", of the State Constitutional provision that "all property shall be taxed according to its value", and of the due process clause of the Federal Constitution. No charge of discrimination is made, that is, of inequality in the assessment of petitioner's property as compared to the assessment of like and adjacent property.

The action of the Board of Equalization is made final by the governing statute, and it is too well settled for discussion that no right of review by certiorari exists, unless it be shown that the Board has exceeded its jurisdiction, or acted illegally, or fraudulently. It appears from the petition that petitioner was given a hearing before the Board and that all the facts set out in the petition as to the sale at which petitioner purchased were submitted to the Board. Petitioner thus had its day in the Court fixed by law. Our cases on this subject have been recently reviewed by this Court in an opinion by the Chief Justice in Savage Co. v. Knoxville, 167 Tenn. 642 72 S.W.2d 1057, in which, on facts somewhat similar to those here presented, certiorari was denied. In that case it was said:

"The petition charges that the board of equalization acted illegally, beyond its jurisdiction, arbitrarily, and discriminatorily, but the only specification is that, while the board of equalization appraised other property in the city of Knoxville at its cash value, it appraised the property of the petitioner at $18,000 in excess of its cash value. No fraud is charged against the board of equalization, nor does it appear that in its procedure that body has disregarded any statutory provisions, except that the petitioner charges that the constitutional and statutory provisions that all property should be assessed equally and at its value were ignored as to petitioner's property.

"Obviously, therefore, the petition is merely an effort to have the courts review, upon petition for certiorari, the valuation placed upon the property for purposes of taxation by the duly constituted taxing authorities. Nothing is better settled in this jurisdiction, and everywhere we believe, than that the courts will not undertake such a review, nothing else appearing. As said in the cases, value is a matter of opinion, and the opinion of the courts is not likely to be any better than the opinion of tribunals specially created to fix property values. It is competent for the Legislature to provide that the findings of such tribunals shall be final so long as they act within their jurisdiction, observe statutory requirements, and there is no fraud.

"In Tomlinson v. Board of Equalization, 88 Tenn. 1, 12 S.W. 414, 6 L.R.A. 207, it was expressly held that the action of a county board of equalization in determining the taxable value of property, being made final by express statutory provision, could not be reviewed by writ of certiorari at the suit of a taxpayer, where the board had not, with reference to his assessment, exceeded its jurisdiction nor acted illegally."

The opinion then cites and reviews Staples v. Brown, 113 Tenn. 639, 85 S.W. 254; Carriger v. Mayor, etc., of Morristown, 148 Tenn. 585, 256 S.W. 883; Mossy Creek Bank v. Jefferson County, 153 Tenn. 332, 284 S.W. 64, and other decisions.

As before stated, there is in the petition before us a general charge, by way of conclusion, of fraud "in legal effect" in over-valuing the petitioner's property and of refusing to accept as conclusive the evidence presented by petitioner of a recent sale price, but upon analysis it is seen that the only specific complaint is that this property of petitioner has been assessed at largely more than its fair cash value as required by law.

The...