Hodges v. Hamblen County

• Decision Date: 19 December 1925
• Citation: 277 S.W. 901
• Parties: HODGES et al. v. HAMBLEN COUNTY et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

277 S.W. 901

HODGES et al. v. HAMBLEN COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 19, 1925.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hamblen County; Ernest R. Taylor, Chancellor.

Bill by Will E. Hodges and others against Hamblen County and others. From the decree, plaintiffs appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Rufus M. Hickey, of Morristown, for Hodges and others.

John R. King, of Morristown, for Hamblen County.

W. N. Hickey, of Morristown, for Read and others.

GREEN, C. J.

The county of Hamblen is entitled to 18 magistrates, and this number were duly elected and qualified prior to the meeting of the regular session of the quarterly court of that county on the first Monday in January, 1925. Eight of these magistrates absented themselves from the January term of the quarterly court, and refused to participate in the deliberations of that body. It seems that differences had arisen between these 8 magistrates and the others about certain matters to come before the court, and the 8 magistrates organized this filibuster by way of breaking a quorum.

Ouster proceedings were brought against the filibustering magistrates; they being charged with willful failure and refusal to perform the duties of their offices. This suit was heard at the March, 1925, term of the chancery court of Hamblen county, and the chancellor removed said magistrates from office. Seven of these magistrates appealed from the chancellor's decree, and their appeal is now pending in this court. One of said magistrates failed to join in the appeal.

Thereafter the election commissioners of Hamblen county called a special election to fill the vacancies arising from the decree of the chancellor, prior to the July, 1925, term of the county court, and 8 other citizens were elected in the places of the magistrates removed from office as aforesaid. The 8 persons elected justices of the peace at this special election, however, refused to qualify as such.

No attempt was made by the remaining members of the county court — the 10 who did not join the filibuster — to transact business at the January, April, or July terms of that court.

In August, 1925, the bill herein was filed by the 10 magistrates not filibustering, under the Declaratory Judgments Statute (Pub. Acts 1923, c. 29), against Hamblen county. The Attorney General of the state was also made a party. Later the 8 citizens elected as magistrates at the special election were permitted to intervene and become parties to the suit.

The bill set out with some more detail the facts above stated, and set out the various statutes of Tennessee regulating the organization and procedure of the quarterly county courts. It was contended by the complainants that under these statutes the 10 magistrates not filibustering constituted a quorum of the county court of Hamblen county, and were entitled to elect officers and transact business for the county. It was submitted, however, that there was a contrary contention made by parties interested to the effect that the statutes prescribed three-fifths of the magistrates to which Hamblen county was entitled as necessary to constitute a quorum and authorize the transaction of business and the election of officers by the county court. It was averred that the business of the county was at a standstill, and that embarrassing conditions were arising, and the court was asked for a declaration upon the matters in controversy.

The case was heard by the chancellor in September, and he was of opinion and decreed that the county court of Hamblen county could not transact business and elect officers unless there were present three-fifths of the magistrates to which the county was...