Campbell County v. Wright

• Decision Date: 30 November 1912
• Citation: 151 S.W. 411
• Parties: CAMPBELL COUNTY v. WRIGHT.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 411

151 S.W. 411

CAMPBELL COUNTY v. WRIGHT.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 30, 1912.

Certiorari to Court of Civil Appeals.

Action by W. H. Wright against Campbell County, originally brought before a justice of the peace. A judgment of the circuit court, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and the suit dismissed, and the case is brought to the Supreme Court by certiorari. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and judgment rendered for plaintiff, in accordance with the judgment of the circuit court.

Owens & Taylor, of La Follette, for plaintiff. John Jennings, Jr., of Jellico, for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

This action was originally brought before a justice of the peace of Campbell county to recover for services performed by the defendant in error as registrar of the La Follette precinct of the First district of Campbell county. The service was alleged to have been rendered prior to the August election in 1910. Judgment was recovered before the justice of the peace, and from this an appeal was prayed to the circuit court of the county, where the judgment was affirmed to the amount of $16.50 and the costs of the suit. From this judgment the county prayed an appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, where the judgment of the circuit court was reversed, and the suit dismissed. The case was then brought to this court by the writ of certiorari.

It was stated in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that no question was made in that court about the value of the services, but that the only question was as to the constitutionality of chapter 419 of the Acts of 1911. It was said in that opinion that the act referred to was held unconstitutional in the circuit court, and therefore the defendant in error was permitted to recover there. The Court of Civil Appeals, on the contrary, held the act constitutional, and for that reason denied the defendant in error any recovery. So it appears that the only matter for consideration in the Court of Civil Appeals, and the only thing that was examined and determined, was the question of the constitutionality of the act of the Legislature referred to.

We are of the opinion that in undertaking to dispose of the constitutional question that court acted beyond its powers. Chapter 82, Acts of 1907, which created that court, declares in section 7: "That the jurisdiction of said Court of Civil Appeals shall be appellate only, and shall extend to all cases brought up from courts of equity or chancery courts, except cases in which the amount involved, exclusive of costs, exceeds one thousand dollars, and except cases involving the constitutionality of the statutes of Tennessee, contested elections for office, state revenue, and ejectment suits, and to all civil cases tried in the circuit and common-law courts of the state, in which appeals in the nature of writs of error, or writs of error may be applied for for the purpose of having the action of said trial court reviewed. In all cases in which appellate jurisdiction is herein conferred upon said Court of Civil Appeals, the appeals and appeals in the nature of writs of error from the lower court shall be taken directly to said Court of Civil Appeals; and said court, or any judge thereof, is hereby given the same power to award and issue writs of error," and writs of "certiorari and supersedeas, which the Supreme Court has heretofore had in such cases,...