Elliott v. Fuqua

• Decision Date: 18 October 1947
• Citation: 204 S.W.2d 1016
• Parties: ELLIOTT et al. v. FUQUA et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 1016

204 S.W.2d 1016

ELLIOTT et al. v. FUQUA et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 18, 1947.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Davidson County; Thos. A. Shriver, Chancellor.

Suit by H. Elliott and others against L. B. Fuqua and others, involving constitutionality of statute. From an adverse judgment, complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

Elkin Garfinkle, of Nashville, for Elliott.

Roy H. Beeler, Atty. Gen., and Henry C. Foutch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Horace Osment, Charles L. Cornelius and Jacob H. Doyle, all of Nashville, for Fuqua.

PREWITT, Justice.

This cause, here on demurrer, involves the constitutionality of Chapter 58 of the Private Acts of 1947, which affects Davidson County only. The chancellor upheld the validity of the Act. The principal assault made is that the Act violates Article 2, section 17, of our Constitution in that the body of the Act is broader than its caption; that is to say, the body of the Act prohibits while the caption purports only to regulate.

It is also contended that the Act does not deal with the county in its political or governmental capacity, but its purport is to affect the citizens in their property and contract rights without affecting others in like condition in other parts of the State, and, therefore, violates Article 1, section 8, and Article 11, section 8, of our Constitution.

The caption of the Act under consideration reads: "An Act to regulate the possession, storage, use, manufacture, or sale of pyrotechnics, as defined in this Act, in all counties in this State having a population of not less than 250,000 and not more than 260,000 inhabitants, according to the Federal census of 1940, or any subsequent Federal census; and to provide penalties for the violation of this Act."

Section 1 provides:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That from and after the effective date of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to possess, store, use, manufacture or sell pyrotechnics, as hereinafter defined, in all counties of this State having a population of not less than 250,000 and not more than 260,000 inhabitants according to the Federal census of 1940, or any subsequent Federal census.

"The term `pyrotechnics' as used in this Act shall be held to mean any sparkler, squibb, rocket, firecracker, Roman candle, fire balloon, flash light composition, fireworks or other similar device or composition used to obtain a visible or audible pyrotechnic display."

Section 2 of the Act provides for the confiscation of articles of merchandise coming within the definition of "pyrotechnics."

Section 3 provides penalties for violations of the Act.

Section 4 is as follows: "Be it further enacted, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as applying to persons, firms and corporations conducting public displays of pyrotechnics by contract or arrangement with any State Fair, patriotic assembly or similar public functions, who acquire all articles used in such pyrotechnic displays from points outside the counties in this State to which this Act is applicable, and keep such pyrotechnic articles in their possession at all times during the public gathering, and transport the same out of this county upon the conclusion of the arrangement or contract under which such pyrotechnics are displayed for public entertainment."

Section 5 provides that the Act is severable.

Section 6 is the enacting clause.

As to the first objection, in the case of Palmer v. Southern Express Co., 129 Tenn. 116, 165 S.W. 236, the Court had under consideration the so-called bone dry law enacted by the Legislature in 1913, Pub. Acts 1913, 2 Ex. Sess., c. 1. The caption begins: "An Act regulating the shipment of intoxicating liquor into this State or between points within this state; regulating the delivery of such liquor; * * *."

One ground of attack was that the Act in its body contained "prohibitions."

...