“the modern rule is that a proviso or saving clause which is directly repugnant to the purview or body of the act is inoperative and void for repugnancy.”
How later courts described this case
- “the modern rule is that a proviso or saving clause which is directly repugnant to the purview or body of the act is inoperative and void for repugnancy.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion.
Mr. Justice Gailor
delivered the dissenting opinion.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case to this extent: I think that the taxpayer is en
*503
titled to a declaration on the’ merits since its counsel was. fully justified in believing that the course pursued had been approved by this Court on account of a number of our reported decisions:
Nashville, C.
&
St. L. R. Co.
v.
Wallace, Comptroller, etc.,
288 U. S. 249 , 53 S. Ct. 345 , 77 L. Ed. 730 , 87 A. L. R. 1191;
General Securities Co.
v.
Williams, Commissioner Finance
&
Taxation,
161 Tenn. 50 , 29 S. W. (2d) 662 (State Excise Tax Law);
Texas Co.
v.
Bryant, Com’r, et al.,
178 Tenn. 1 , 152 S. W. (2d) 627 .
Under these circumstances, on the procedure followed, I think the taxpayer is entitled to a declaration of its rights on the merits and that our disapproval of the procedure by bill for a declaratory judgment should not be given retroactive effect.