City of Memphis v. Enloe

• Decision Date: 03 July 1919
• Parties: CITY OF MEMPHIS v. ENLOE ET AL.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

214 S.W. 71

141 Tenn. 618

CITY OF MEMPHIS v. ENLOE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

July 3, 1919

Appeal from Chancery Court, Davidson County; J. B. Newman Chancellor.

Bill by the City of Memphis against B. A. Enloe and others, composing the Railroad Commission. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H. J Livingston, City Atty., of Memphis, for appellant.

Frank M. Thompson, Atty. Gen., and Wright, Miles, Waring & Walker of Memphis, for appellees.

LANSDEN C.J.

This case was brought to enjoin the Railroad Commission, composed of Messrs. Enloe, Welch, and Hannah, from hearing an application filed by the receivers of the Memphis Street Railway Company, asking authority to increase the fare for passengers on its street cars in excess of five cents. The basis of the bill is that chapter 49, Acts of 1919, is unconstitutional and void. The chancellor held the act valid and dismissed the bill, and complainant appealed to this court. The court considered the case one of general importance and advanced it upon the docket for hearing. A number of errors have been assigned, but they present the general question that the act assailed is void. We will discuss the objections made to the act in the order in which they appear in the briefs, and therefore a fuller statement of the purposes of the bill is not deemed important.

The first objection to the act is that it violates section 17 of article 2 of the Constitution, which forbids any "bill to become a law which embraces more than one subject, that subject to be expressed in the title. All acts which repeal revive or amend former laws, shall recite in their caption, or otherwise, the title or substance of the law repealed, revived or amended."

It is said that the act in question is invalid because the act amended, under an appropriate caption, relates solely to steam railroads; and this act, while purporting to amend it, expressly provides that its provisions, and none of the powers conferred upon the Railroad and Public Utilities Commission by the amendatory act, shall relate to such railroads.

We think the fundamental error in this contention lies in the fact that learned counsel considers chapter 10 of the Acts of 1897 as relating alone to the subject of railroads. While it does relate to railroads, the subject expressed in the title is not confined to railroads. It is an act "to create a Railroad Commission in this state and define its duties and powers; to prohibit extortion, unjust discrimination and undue or unreasonable preference by railroad companies and other persons operating railroads in this state, in their charges for transportation of freight and passengers; to secure just and reasonable rates and charges for all such services; and to impose penalties and to provide civil remedies for and punish violation of, this act, and to secure the due execution and enforcement of its provisions, and all lawful orders, rules and regulations of the said Railroad Commission." The amendment made was to "change the name of the Railroad Commission, to increase its powers and functions, and to embrace within its jurisdiction and powers all other public utilities." It will thus be seen that the original act relates alone to steam railroads and their regulation, while this amendment, in addition to changing the name of the commission, increases its powers and functions so as to embrace within its jurisdiction and powers all other public utilities. It is immaterial that the amendatory act excludes steam railroads from the operation of the amendment, because the original act relates to them. It is not a substantial objection, if made, that the two provisions of the act as amended are not homologous. They are all public utilities, and the Legislature can deal with them together better than separately. It is true that the title of the amendatory act does not state that steam railroads are to be expected from the operation of the amendatory act. But this is not material, because steam railroads are dealt with in the original act. The amendment proposed is to change the name of the Railroad Commission, and to increase its powers and functions so as to embrace within them all other public utilities. The use of the word "other" might indicate the intention of the Legislature to exclude steam railroads. At all events, it indicates that the Legislature knew that steam railroads were public utilities dealt with by the act of 1897, and desired to expand the original act so as to increase its powers and functions. We do not think the case of Bank v. Divine Gro. Co., 97 Tenn. 603, 37 S.W. 390, cited by complainants, is contrary to this holding.

The case of Railroad v. Byrne, 119 Tenn. 278, 104 S.W. 460, seems to be controlling on this branch of the bill. This amendatory act does recite the caption of the amended act, and we think the provisions of the amendatory act are germane to the original act and embraced within the title thereof. State v. Algood, 87 Tenn. 163, 10 S.W. 310; Goodbar v. Memphis, 113 Tenn. 20, 81 S.W. 1061. The original act is an act to create a Railroad Commission and define its duties and powers. The amendatory act changes the name of the Railroad Commission and increases its powers and functions. It is well understood, we think, that the generality of the title of a bill is no objection to the bill, provided it conveys a reasonable understanding of the subject of legislation; and it is equally well understood that the body of the act need not fill up the title.

It is also said that the act in question makes arbitrary and illegal classifications, and for these reasons is void. It is well settled that an act is void, both under the laws of Tennessee and of the United States, which makes an arbitrary and illegal classification. State v. Railroad, 124 Tenn. 1, 135 S.W. 773; Stratton v. Morris, 89 Tenn. 534, 15 S.W. 87, 12 L. R. A. 70; Railway v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 155, 17 S.Ct. 255, 41 L.Ed. 666; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540, 22 S.Ct. 431, 46 L.Ed. 679.

But we are of opinion that the act in question is not open to this assailment. The assault is, specifically, that the requirement in the act that public utilities carry for the protection of stockholders, bondholders, or other securities a depreciation account; that they keep their records, books and accounts in a certain manner; that they cannot issue stocks, bond certificates, bonds, debentures, or other evidences of indebtedness payable in more than one year without first obtaining authority from the commission; that they cannot lease, merge, or consolidate any of their properties, rights, or franchises without the approval of the commission; that they cannot acquire any privilege or franchise without the approval of the commission; that such utility has the right to appeal to the commission from any order or regulation made by any local, municipal, and county governing body; the power of the commission to require such utilities to construct and operate extension or abandon the service--made the act void because introduced by the amendatory act and not contained in the original act. It is said that these requirements of public utilities other than steam railroads create an illegal and arbitrary classification against them. Under authority of Noell v. Power Co., 130 Tenn. 245, 169 S.W. 1169, and many other cases, we think the city of Memphis cannot complain at an alleged unlawful classification and discrimination against these...