Baker v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 17 November 1900 |
| Citation | 59 S.W. 137 |
| Parties | BAKER v. MITCHELL. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Greene county; John B. Smith, Judge.
Election contest by H. M. Baker against J. Mitchell. From a decree of the court of chancery appeals, dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Harmon & Swingle and Shoun & Susong, for complainant. Kirkpatrick, Williams & Bowman, for defendant.
The principal question involved in this case is whether the chancery court has jurisdiction to try a contest over the election of mayor of the town of Greenville, Tenn. The chancellor decided in favor of the jurisdiction, and heard the case upon its merits. The court of chancery appeals decided against the jurisdiction, and dismissed the bill, and complainant. Baker, appealed to this court, and assigned errors.
We are of opinion the chancery court has no jurisdiction of a contest over the election of a mayor. By the statute (Shannon's Code, § 6063) it is provided that "the circuit courts of the state are courts of general jurisdiction, and the judges thereof shall administer right and justice according to law in all cases when the jurisdiction is not conferred upon another tribunal." There being no express provision conferring jurisdiction upon any other tribunal in the trial of contested elections of mayor in our statutes, that jurisdiction and power vests in the circuit court under this statute. The act of 1877 (chapter 97), enlarging and extending the jurisdiction of the chancery court, does not confer jurisdiction on it in a proceeding of this character. It is not a "cause," within the meaning of that act. Shields v. Davis, 103 Tenn. 538, 53 S. W. 948; Boring v. Griffith, 1 Heisk. 456. The case of Morris v. Mayor, etc., 6 Lea, 337, is not in point. It was commented upon and distinguished in the case of Shields v. Davis, 103 Tenn. 545, 53 S. W. 948, and what is there said is applicable in the present case.
It is said the question of jurisdiction was waived in the court below. A demurrer was filed raising the question of jurisdiction, but an answer on the merits was filed at the same time, and it is insisted the demurrer was waived by the answer. It appears that before the case was heard on the merits the defendant moved the court for leave to withdraw the answer if the court considered it as interfering with the question of jurisdiction. The court held that the question of jurisdiction was then open on the record, and that it had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bristol
...of Final Expunction Ord. in McNairy Cnty. Cir. Ct. Case No. 3279 v. Rausch , 645 S.W.3d 160, 167 (Tenn. 2022) ; Baker v. Mitchell , 105 Tenn. 610, 59 S.W. 137, 138 (1900) ; Reynolds v. Hamilton , 18 Tenn.App. 380, 77 S.W.2d 986, 988 (1934) ; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) ("The appellate court shal......
-
Foster v. Collins, No. W2004-01959-COA-R3-CV (TN 12/27/2005)
...upon the court by the consent of the parties. County of Shelby v. City of Memphis, 365 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Tenn. 1963); Baker v. Mitchell, 59 S.W. 137, 138 (Tenn. 1900); Gillespie v. State, 619 S.W.2d 128, 129 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981); Tritschler v. Cartwright, 333 S.W.2d 6, 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. 195......
-
Tritschler v. Cartwright
...matter in this case, the only decree that could be entered by that Court or this Court would be a dismissal of the suit. Baker v. Mitchell, 105 Tenn. 610, 59 S.W. 137; Reynolds v. Hamilton, 18 Tenn.App. 380, 385, 77 S.W.2d 986, 988; Manning v. Feidelson, 175 Tenn. 576, 578, 136 S.W.2d 510; ......
-
Petition of Southern Lumber & Mfg. Co.
...32; Noel v. Scoby, 2 Heisk. 20; Ferris v. Fort, 2 Tenn. Ch. 150; Board v. Bodkin Bros., 108 Tenn. 700, 69 S. W. 270; Baker v. Mitchell, 105 Tenn. 610, 59 S. W. 137. In Penn. R. R. Co. v. International Coal Co., 230 U. S. 184, 33 Sup. Ct. 893, 57 L. Ed. 1446, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 315, the questi......