Frazier v. City of Chattanooga
Fred B. Frazier v. City of Chattanooga.[]
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Swiggart delivered the opinion of the Court.
Complainant’s hill asks for a declaratory judgment as to whether chapter 149 of the Private Acts of 1907 is repealed by implication by chapter 457 of the Private Acts of 1927.
Both acts confer powers upon the City of Chattanooga with respect to local improvements, with provisions for the assessment of a portion of the costs against abutting property and property benefited by the improvements. Both are in form amendments to the charter of the City of Chattanooga.
In section 1 of the Act of 1907 it is provided that the charter is amended so as to confer upon the city government “the powers conferred by this act, in addition to those now possessed by it.” , In the Act of 1927, section 1, it is provided that the charter is amended “so as to confer the following powers on said city in addition to the powers heretofore granted. ’ ’
It thus appears that by express provision, the Act of 1927 discloses a legislative, intention that the powers therein conferred upon the city should not be exclusive nor in lieu of those previously granted, but should be in addition to the existing powers of the city government.
*348 The Chancellor was of the opinion that the question at issue is controlled by the principles stated in the opinion of this court in City of Rockwood v. Rodgers, 154 Tenn., 638 , and accordingly sustained the first two grounds of the city’s demurrer. In this holding of the Chancellor we concur.
In this view of the cause, it is unnecessary to pass upon the third ground of the city’s demurrer, also sustained by the Chancellor, to the effect that even though the Act of 1907 be considered as having been repealed by the Act of 1927, the city might still proceed to the completion of improvements and the making of assessments therefor under the Act of 1907, because commenced and under way prior to the passage of the Act of 1927.
Upon sustaining the city’s demurrer, the Chancellor entered a decree dismissing complainant’s bill. It seems to us that the better practice in a case brought under the Declaratory Judgment Law, Acts 1923, chapter 29, is to enter a decree, sometimes referred to as a “declaration,” defining the rights of the parties under the issues made, even though such decree is adverse to the contentions of the bill.
A decree will accordingly be entered in this court adjudging that the -Acts of 1907, chapter 149, is not repealed by the subsequent enactment of the Acts of 1927,' chapter 457.
The costs will be adjudged against the complainant.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(affirming trial court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action even though it would have been “better practice” to enter a declaration)
-
(stating “the better practice in a [declaratory judgment action] is to enter a decree, sometimes referred to as a ‘declaration,’ defining the rights of the parties under the issues made, even though such decree is adverse to the contentions of the bill.”)
Cited by 18 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Timberlake Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Timberlake Development, LLC
- Donny N. Parsley v. City of Manchester, Tennessee
- David Scott Blackwell v. Bill Haslam, Governor of the State of Tennessee
- Highwoods Properties, Inc. v. City of Memphis
- Cannon County Board of Education v. Wade
- South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Chattanooga
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.