Brown v. Brown

• Decision Date: 11 December 1948
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. BROWN et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

216 S.W.2d. 333

BROWN et al. v. BROWN et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 11, 1948.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Bledsoe County; Glen W. Woodlee, Chancellor.

Suit by James I. Brown and others against Bob Brown and others wherein an attack was made on the validity of Private Acts 1947, chapter 606. From a decree sustaining the act as valid, an appeal is taken.

Decree affirmed.

Lewis S. Pope, of Nashville, for appellants.

Carlyle S. Littleton, of Chattanooga, for appellees.

BURNETT, Justice.

The validity of chapter 606 of the Private Acts of 1947 is attacked in this case on the ground that the act contains two subjects in violation of Section 17, of Article 2, of the Constitution.

The Caption of the act is:

"A Bill to be entitled: An Act to provide a County Board of Education and a County Superintendent of Education for Bledsoe County; to provide for the election of the County Superintendent and the members of the County Board of Education by the Quarterly County Court of Bledsoe County; to fix the term of office of such officers, their qualifications, duties and compensation."

The body of the act provides for a County Board of Education and a County Superintendent of Education for Bledsoe County, and for the election of these officials by the Quarterly County Court and fixes their term of office. Otherwise it is provided that the general laws are applicable.

It is very ably argued that the act, both in its caption and body, "clearly contains two separate and distinct subjects" in the law, and therefore the act is in contravention of the section of the Constitution above mentioned.

We cannot agree with this theory and contention.

"The two-subject clause of the constitution was intended to prevent a combination in the same act of laws upon wholly different subjects; to avoid the union of incongruous matters in one statute; to secure unity of purpose in legislative enactments." (Citing cases.) Bell v. Hart, 143 Tenn. 587, 223 S.W. 996. (Emphasis ours.)

In Davis v. Hailey, 143 Tenn. 247, 252, 227 S.W. 1021, 1022, the late Chief Justice Green who delivered the opinion for the court in the case last above quoted from, said:

"So far as section 17, article 2, is concerned, if the various provisions of an act are directed toward a common purpose, and that purpose is expressed in the title, it would make no difference if the several provisions of the act involved all powers of the Legislature. This section of the Constitution regulates the syntax of statutes. It imposes no restriction upon the powers exerted, nor upon the commingling of such powers, so long as the provisions of the statute are not incongruous and are germane to the subject expressed in the caption."

The...