Clark v. Vaughn
| Decision Date | 13 January 1941 |
| Citation | 146 S.W.2d 351 |
| Parties | CLARK et al. v. VAUGHN et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
E. B. Madison, of Athens, and R. R. Webb, of Etowah, for complainants.
Witt & Bratton, of Madisonville, and Ralph W. Duggan, of Athens, for defendants.
This bill was filed by citizens and voters of the Town of Athens, attacking the constitutionality of Chapter 317 of the Private Acts of 1939, entitled, "An Act to amend the Charter of the City of Athens, McMinn County, Tennessee, same being Chapter 316 of the Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, for the year 1903," which provided for the creation of a Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Athens, with the duty of calling and holding all elections of its City officials, etc. The bill also sought to enjoin certain defendants named from holding office as members of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Athens under and by virtue of an election which had been held under the provisions of this Private Act of 1939 on the 11th day of July, 1939.
Demurrers were interposed challenging the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court to enjoin the defendants, upon the theory that an election contest was involved over the offices described, the defendants, as shown by the bill, being the holders of certificates of election to said offices; also, the right of the complainants to maintain their attack upon the constitutionality of the Act in question was challenged.
The Chancellor sustained the demurrers in so far as they went to the issuance of the injunction, but sustained the bill in so far as it sought to challenge the constitutionality of this special Act, and declared the Act unconstitutional and void upon the ground that it was in conflict with and suspended the general election laws of the state, for the benefit of the Town of Athens. He held Section 8, Article 11, to be thereby violated.
We find no error in this holding of the Chancellor.
While the Legislature may constitutionally enact special laws affecting a municipality of the State, usually by amendment to its charter, this cannot be done with respect to matters which are governed by general laws applicable to the entire State and all counties and municipalities therein alike. The distinction running through our authorities appears to be that these special charter provisions may be lawfully enacted only as to such matters and in such particulars as have not been made the subject of uniform State-wide legislation. An illustration is afforded by Chapter 115 of the Acts of 1925, "to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Chattanooga v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission
...all private acts and all charter provisions. Trotter v. City of Maryville, 191 Tenn. 510, 235 S.W.2d 13 (1950); Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351 (1941). II. We must keep in mind the legal situation presented by this controversy. This case came to the Circuit Court by way of com......
-
Brentwood Liquors Corp. of Williamson County v. Fox
...Tenn. 371, 95 S.W.2d 618 (1936); State ex rel. Smith v. City of Chattanooga, 176 Tenn. 642, 144 S.W.2d 1096 (1940); Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351 (1941); Berry v. Hayes, 160 Tenn. 577, 28 S.W.2d 50 (1930). After reviewing these cases the Court These cases are not in the slig......
-
Southern v. Beeler
...all the counties or municipalities and is upon a reasonable basis. Otherwise it is void." We dealt with this question in Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351, and there held that a private act affecting the Town of Athens in its political capacity was because it operated to suspend......
-
Lynch v. Faris
...of individuals, inconsistent with the general laws of the land.' See also Kyle v. Marcom, 181 Tenn. 57, 178 S.W.2d 618; Clark v. Vaughn, 177 Tenn. 76, 146 S.W.2d 351; and Anderson v. Carter County, 172 Tenn. 114, 110 S.W.2d 321; State ex rel. Bales v. Hamilton County, 170 Tenn. 371, 375, 95......