Berry v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 24 May 1930 |
| Parties | BERRY, State Highway Com'r, v. HAYES et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Williamson County; J. C. Hobbs, Judge.
Suit by Harry S. Berry, State Highway Commissioner, against McGavock Hayes and others, to condemn certain land in Williamson county. Defense was interposed by the county, and, from an adverse judgment, the county appeals.
Affirmed.
The constitutionality of chapter 45, Private Acts of 1923, is involved. That act provided "that the State Highway Commission shall not have the right or power" to impose expenses upon Williamson County, designated by population "without the consent of such county." In exercise of the power conferred by the General Highway Acts, chapter 74, Acts of 1917, and chapter 149, Acts of 1919, providing for a "system of State Highways" and expressly empowering the highway department to designate all such roadways and to prosecute condemnation proceedings, and requiring all counties alike to pay therefor, the highway commissioner brought this suit to condemn a small strip of land in Williamson county. These general acts have been construed and sustained. State Highway Dept. v Mitchell's Heirs, 142 Tenn. 58, 216 S.W. 336; Williamson County v. Turnpike Co., 143 Tenn. 644 228 S.W. 714; Liles v. Creveling, 151 Tenn. 61, 268 S.W. 625.
Defense was interposed by the county, relying on the local act above referred to, on the ground that the county did not consent. In reply the state commissioner challenged the constitutionality of the local act as violative of section 8 art. 1, and section 8, art. 11, of the state Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. The trial court held the local act unconstitutional and gave judgment against the county. The county has appealed. We concur with the learned trial judge.
It is clear that this act is within the prohibition of section 8, art. 11, in that it suspends a general law and grants immunities and exemptions to Williamson county which no other county may enjoy. It is arbitrary class legislation for which no possible justification can be conceived. There is no reasonable ground for granting an immunity to Williamson county which does not apply to every other county alike. Williamson county enjoys with every other county the benefits of the state highway system. Among our cases in point are: Memphis v. Fisher, 9 Baxt. (68 Tenn.) 239; Southern Railroad Co. v. Memphis, 126 Tenn. 286, 148 S.W. 662, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 828, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 153; Fleming v. Memphis, 126 Tenn. 335, 148 S.W. 1057, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 493, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1306.
For the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Incorporated Town of Grand Junction
...Walsh v. State, 142 Ind. 357, 41 N.E. 65, 33 L.R.A. 392; Schneck v. City of Jeffersonville, 152 Ind. 204, 52 N.E. 212. In Berry v. Hayes, 160 Tenn. 577, 28 S.W.(2d) 50, a act of the Legislature provided that the commissioners of a certain county should not have the right or power to impose ......
-
Somerville v. McCormick
... ... Dreaden v. Halliburton, 166 Tenn. 331, 61 S.W.2d ... 670; Shanks v. Hawkins County, 160 Tenn. 148, 22 ... S.W.2d 355; Berry v. Hayes, 160 Tenn. 577, 28 S.W.2d ... 50; Roberts v. Roane County, 160 Tenn. 109, 23 ... S.W.2d 239; Howe v. Hawkins County, 159 Tenn. 651, ... ...
-
Town of McMinnville v. Curtis
...shall be made as a condition precedent to voting in elections of all other municipalities of the State. In the case of Berry v. Hayes, 160 Tenn. 577, 28 S.W.2d 50, a special act contravening the general law forbade the Highway Commissioner from imposing rights of way expenses on Williamson ......
-
Baker v. Hickman County
...1105, 1108; State ex rel. v. Cummins, 141 Tenn. 318, 210 S.W. 161; State ex rel. v. Stewart, 147 Tenn. 375, 247 S.W. 984; Berry v. Hayes, 160 Tenn. 577, 28 S.W.(2d) 50. Weaver v. Davidson County, supra, the court said: "If the legislation is obnoxious because it is partial legislation, the ......