Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 31 December 1879 |
| Citation | 71 Tenn. 376 |
| Parties | L. H. Davis v. The State. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal in error from the Criminal Court of Davidson County. J. M. QUARLES, J.
KENNEDY & MORRIS for Davis.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEA for the State.
On the 31st of March, 1879, the Legislature passed an act entitled “An act to prohibit speculation in witness fees and other fees originating in courts.” The first section reads thus: “It is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor for any person in this State, either by himself or through an agent, to purchase, contract for, or otherwise speculate in fees due to witnesses for attendance as such in said courts, or to buy or speculate in any other fees for services rendered by third persons in said courts, for less than their face value; Provided, that the provisions of this bill shall not apply to witness fees traded for merchandise or hotel bills.” Acts of 1879, ch. 210, sec. 1.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for a violation of the provisions of this statute. He moved to quash the indictment, which motion was overruled. He was then tried upon the plea of not guilty, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine and the costs. He has appealed in error.
The defense is rested upon the unconstitutionality of the act, and the argument submitted in support thereof is made to turn on general principles, rather than on any specific provisions of the Constitution. The right of the citizen to freely dispose of his property, and the absence of substantial evil to be met by the legislation, have been more discussed than the inherent power of the Legislature. It is the settled rule in this State, as in the United States generally, that the Legislature has unlimited power of legislation, except so far as it is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee. Hope v. Deaderick, 8 Hum., 8; Bell v. Bank of Nashville, Peck, 269. The legislative department is not made a special agency for the exercise of specifically defined legislative powers, but is entrusted with the general authority to make laws at discretion. They who insist upon the unconstitutionality of an act must point out the specific provision of the Constitution which is violated. The court can only interpose upon a plain violation of some positive provision of the organic law. Whether a statute is “contrary to the genius of a free people,” is a question for the legislator, not the judge. It can not be annulled upon supposed natural equity, the inherent rights of freemen, or any general and vague interpretation of a provision of the Constitution beyond its plain and obvious import.
The only citation from the Constitution made in the argument is the 8th section of the Bill of Rights, that no man shall be deprived of his liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. And it is argued that the act in question, although in form a prohibition against the purchase of the fees of witnesses, is in fact a restraint upon the free disposition by the witness of the fees as property, and pro tanto a deprivation of an important element of property. But the claim of a witness for the fees allowed him by law is only a chose in action, not assignable by the common law. The Legislature has made such claims assignable, and it is clearly within its competency to take away that quality. With...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clark
...legislation for the benefit of classes composed of any members of the community who may bring themselves within the class."Davis v. State, 71 Tenn. 376, 379 (1879), quoted at 21 Or. 409, 28 P. 130.10 In such cases, however, the constitutional issue normally would be avoided by interpreting ......
-
Gates v. Long
... ... of complainants accordingly is that none of these bills was ... legally passed by the House ... In ... State of Tennessee ex rel. v. Shumate, 113 S.W.2d ... 381, just announced, we held that Shumate, one of the members ... of the House whose eligibility ... Dayton, etc., Co. v. Barton, 103 Tenn. 604, 53 S.W ... 970; Henley v. State, 98 Tenn. 665, 41 S.W. 352, ... 1104, 39 L.R.A. 126; Davis v. State, 3 Lea 376, 71 ... Tenn. 376, 377 ... It is ... within the power of the Legislature within reasonable limits ... to ... ...
-
Gay v. Thomas
...of individuals does not preclude laws for the benefit of particular classes. As for example, mechanics and other laborers. (Davis v. State, 71 Tenn. 376, 3 Lea 376). ¶47 We think the case of Daily Leader v. Cameron, 3 Okla. 677, 41 P. 635, is decisive on this point. In that case this court ......
-
Waldauer v. Britton
...Dayton, etc., Co. v. Barton, 103 Tenn. 604, 53 S.W. 970; Henley v. State, 98 Tenn. 665, 41 S.W. 352, 1104, 39 L.R.A. 126; Davis v. State, 3 Lea 376, 71 Tenn. 376, 377. Says the Supreme Court of Alabama, in White Decatur, 225 Ala. 646, 144 So. 873, 874, 86 A.L.R. 914, 916: "It is well settle......