Opinion
Opinion filed June 8, 1956.
1. COUNTIES.
Under statutes creating a Board of Commissioners and conferring all administrative powers on them with certain specific exceptions, Board of Commissioners was required to submit annual budgets to County Court covering the amount of money necessary to defray the operating expenses of the county for the ensuing year in order that the court might determine the necessary amount of taxes. Priv.Acts 1937, c. 183, secs. 1 et seq., 2.
2. COUNTIES.
Under statutes creating a Board of Commissioners and conferring all administrative powers on them with certain exceptions, County Court did not have power to question legality of any item in budget, but was required to levy a tax rate upon all taxable property in county sufficient to take care of requirements of budget as submitted to it. Priv.Acts 1937, c. 183, secs. 1 et seq., 2.
3. COUNTIES.
Where statutes creating a Board of Commissioners conferred all administrative powers on them with certain specific exceptions, giving of all such administrative powers to the commission deprived County Court of any right to change budget submitted by Commission. Priv.Acts 1937, c. 183, secs. 1 et seq., 2.
4. COUNTIES.
Question of illegality of certain items in a county budget submitted by Board of Commissioners could be questioned in a court of equity, but could not be questioned by County Court. Priv.Acts 1937, c. 183, secs. 1 et seq., 2.
FROM KNOXANDERSON ANDERSON and EARL S. AILOR, Knoxville, for appellants.
FOWLER, ROWNTREE FOWLER, Knoxville, for appellees.
Mandamus proceeding to require members of County Court to levy taxes sufficient to take care of the requirements of a budget submitted by Board of County Commissioners. The Circuit Court, Knox County, John M. Kelly, Circuit Judge, entered judgment for Commissioners, and members of the County Court appealed. The Supreme Court, Prewitt, Justice, held that under statutes creating a Board of Commissioners and conferring all administrative powers on them with certain specific exceptions, County Court did not have power to question legality of any item in budget, but was required to levy a tax rate upon all taxable property in county sufficient to take care of requirements of budget as submitted to it.
Judgment affirmed.
The purpose of the bill in this case was to require members of the County Court of Knox County to levy taxes sufficient to take care of the requirements of the budget submitted to it by the Board of County Commissioners of Knox County. These commissioners in this mandamus proceeding contend that it is exclusively vested with the authority to prepare the budget and that the only function which the County Court performs with respect thereto is to levy a tax rate sufficient to take care of the requirements of the budget which the County Court is required to do.
The complainants, as County Commissioners, are serving by virtue of the Private Acts of 1937, which creates a Board of Commissioners and provides as follows:
"* * * That to the end that centralization, consolidation and co-ordination of County administrative affairs may be more effectively attained and more economically and efficiently administered, there is hereby created * * * a Board of County Commissioners."
Section 2, page 524, provides as follows:
"* * * it being the intention of this Act to divest all purely administrative and appointive powers out of the County Court and all other Boards or Commissions excepting the schools and those powers and duties expressly conferred upon the County Court by the Constitution of Tennessee, and vest the same in said Board of County Commissioners, and neither the County Court nor any other County Board, Commission or Agency shall have the power to duplicate the service herein imposed upon the County Board of Commissioners; provided, nothing herein shall be deemed to interfere with the judicial powers of the Justices of the Peace or of the probate powers of the County Court or the Judge or Chairman thereof."
From the reading of the provisions of said Act of 1937 it is clear that all administrative powers are vested in the County Commission "excepting the schools and those powers and duties expressly conferred upon the County Court by the Constitution of Tennessee."
We think it was settled in our case of Troutman v. Crippen, 186 Tenn. 459, 463, 212 S.W.2d 33, that the Acts of 1937 require the Board of Commissioners to submit annual budgets to the County Court covering the amount of money necessary to defray the operating expenses of the county for the ensuing year in order that the court may determine the amount of taxes necessary to raise.
Under this Act it should be mandatory upon said County Court to levy a tax rate upon all taxable property in said county sufficient to take care of the requirements of said budget as submitted to it.
It is clear from reading Troutman v. Crippen, supra, that these budgets to be submitted by the county commission should cover all of the operating expenses of the county.
Giving of all administrative powers to the Commission necessarily means that the County Court cannot change the budget, for to exercise such an authority could deprive the County Commission of all administrative powers.
The taking of all administrative powers from the County Court except the authority to elect a ranger and coroner and to fill vacancies in the county offices between elections, necessarily means that the administrative power of controlling the budget is withdrawn from the County Court.
It was held in Reams v. Board of Mayor and Aldermen, 155 Tenn. 222, 291 S.W. 1067, that if the Board of Commissioners of Knox County should contemplate disbursing funds illegally, any taxpayer could proceed in the Chancery Court to enjoin the disbursement thereof.
It is apparent as a practical matter if in making up the budget the Board of Commissioners were confined to items of unquestionable legality, then it would result that if such items had to be paid thereafter, there would be no money to take care of them.
The placing of an illegal item in a budget does not mean that it is going to be paid, and there is no question but these illegal items may be successfully questioned in a court of equity.
We think there is no error in the Circuit Judge entering a judgment in favor of the complainants and his action is affirmed.