Frazier v. Elmore

• Decision Date: 03 July 1943
• Citation: 173 Tenn. 563
• Parties: FRAZIER v. ELMORE, County Judge, et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 563

173 Tenn. 563

FRAZIER v. ELMORE, County Judge, et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

July 3, 1943.

On Petition for Rehearing August 21, 1943.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Knox County; A. E. Mitchell, Chancellor.

Suit by Alfred Frazier against James W. Elmore, County Judge, and others, for an injunction against application of Pub. Acts 1943, c. 4, to complainant, and for a declaratory judgment. From a decree for complainant, the defendants appeal.

Decree reversed and bill dismissed.

Joel H. Anderson, of Knoxville, for complainant.

Kennerly & Key, of Knoxville, for defendant Kelly.

W. L. Ambrose, Jr., of Knoxville, for defendant Elmore.

W. F. Barry, Jr., Sol. Gen., of Nashville, and Thomas H. Malone, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Attorney General.

CHAMBLISS, Justice.

Complainant Frazier challenges the constitutionality of Chapter 4, Acts of 1943, seeks an injunction against its application to him, naming the County Judge, the disbursing officer, and the interim appointee of the Governor, defendants, and prays for a declaratory judgment.

Elected in August, 1942, to the office of Judge of the Knox County Court of General Sessions, created by Chapter 54, Private Acts of 1939, he was inducted in the military service of the United States in October, after serving as Judge for one month only, and thereupon removed from the State and ceased to perform the duties of the office. What position he holds in the United States military service does not appear.

It is a matter of common knowledge, of which we take judicial notice, that numerous similar situations have arisen in the State, and it was to meet this emergency that the Legislature enacted Chapter 4, in January 1943, the obvious primary and fundamental purpose being to preserve to these incumbents these offices, despite their resulting failure to discharge the duties of their respective offices for the uncertain duration of the war; a further purpose being to provide against disruption of judicial and other essential governmental services. The caption of the Act reads: "An Act to provide for the temporary filling of State and County offices when the regular incumbent is inducted into the military service of the United States."

Section one provides that "such induction shall not operate to create a permanent vacancy in said office, but upon the return of said officer from said military service he shall be entitled to resume the duties of the office for the remainder of the term for which he was elected," etc.

Section two provides that "the duties of the office shall be discharged temporarily during the absence of such officer by some other person legally qualified * * * and selected in the manner hereinafter set out"; and, further, that the person so serving "shall receive the salary attached to said office payable out of the funds provided for that purpose," etc.

Section three provides for the appointment by the Governor of temporary judges, expressly including General Sessions Judges, when such vacancies occur in these judicial offices, and then provides for the filling of vacancies in other cases not pertinent here.

Section four provides that the Act shall include all branches of military service, and Section five for the giving of bonds and taking of oaths of office by the temporary incumbents.

Finally, quite apparently for the further benefit and protection of the absentees, it is provided by Section six that such temporary incumbents "shall be without power to remove any assistant or assistants appointed by the" regular incumbent.

It is the incidental provision in Section two for the payment to the temporary appointees, who may be performing the duties of the office, of the compensation attached to the office which complainant challenges as violative of the first paragraph of Section 7, Article VI, of the State Constitution, reading:

"The Judges of the Supreme or Inferior Courts shall, at stated times, receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, which shall not be increased or diminished during the time for which they are elected."

The insistence of complainant below, sustained by the Chancellor, is that he is an inferior judge, within the protection of this constitutional provision, and that the effect of the statute, in the particular above noted, is to "diminish" his compensation during his term.

The defendants appeal and deny that complainant is a judge of an "inferior court," within the contemplation of this protective clause, and say he may not, therefore, invoke it.

We consider first a preliminary question, the right of complainant to maintain this suit, both because it is obvious that the Act he challenges was passed primarily to preserve to him his office, the benefits to him outweighing the temporary suspension of his salary, and because, without this saving law, he is in the attitude of violating both a provision of the identical section of the Constitution which he invokes, and an express requirement of the Act creating the office he claims to hold.

The clause above quoted from the Constitution is not all of this section. It proceeds: "They shall not be allowed any fees or perquisites of office, nor hold any office of trust or profit under this State or the United States." (The italics are ours.)

If complainant is a judge of an inferior court within the protection of the first clause, as he contends, is he not now holding an office of trust and profit under the United States in violation of this second clause? If so, can he invoke the protection of the one clause, while violating the prohibition of the other? The bill does not disclose the precise character of the duties, the nature of the military service he is rendering to "the United States," nor the compensation he is receiving, but however this may be, he is in a position of high "trust" and receives at least some financial compensation, some "profit." The term "office," in its context, must be given its broad meaning, so as to effectuate the apparent intent of the constitutional prohibition against a diversion or division of the time and labor, energies and abilities of judges of our courts, which might destroy, or diminish their capacity to discharge the exacting duties of their responsible positions; and also to limit them to one source of compensation. Webster defines "office" as an "assigned duty or function." Synonyms are post, appointment, situation, place, position; and "office commonly suggests a position of (especially public) trust or authority." Bouvier defines "office" as "a right to exercise a public function or employment, and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it"; again, "a public charge or employment." 2 Bouv. Law Dict., Rawles Third Revision, p. 2401. The opinion of this Court in Jones, Purvis & Co. v. Hobbs, 63 Tenn. 113, at page 120, quotes Blackstone's definition of office as "a right to exercise a public or private employment, and to take the fees and emoluments thereto belonging."

We commonly refer to and describe those whose duty it is to preserve the peace as peace "officers," or law enforcement "officers"; a member of the police force, without regard to rank, is described as a "police officer." See Smith v. Tate, 143 Tenn. 268, at page 276, 227 S.W. 1026. In State ex rel. Little v. Slagle, 115 Tenn. 336, 89 S.W. 326, it was held that a deputy sheriff, although without a fixed term or compensation, dependent on fees, is an "officer" within the constitutional provision (Art. 2, sec. 26) that no person shall hold more than one lucrative office at the same time; and the Court applied the common law rule that the acceptance of a second office incompatible with one then held is, ipso facto, a vacation of the first, citing State ex rel. Bergshicher v. Grace, 113 Tenn. 9, 82 S.W. 485, and numerous other cases. A later case re-affirming this rule is Wallace v. Grubb, 154 Tenn. 655, 289 S.W. 530, 531. Acceptance of a second appointment on a school board was held to vacate a former appointment. Authorities above cited were followed; and it is significant that this position was described as a "place," the descriptive term "office" not being employed. Said the Court: "One person could not hold two places. The occupancy of one place was incompatible with the occupancy of the other. So when Wallace accepted the second appointment, as a necessary consequence the place he held under the first appointment was vacated. This is too well settled under our authorities to require discussion," citing cases supra.

Whatever may be the post or station in the military service of the United States which complainant is occupying, he is in a place of trust and honor and is receiving compensation therefrom. And if not technically holding another "office," within the letter of the prohibition, he is certainly within its spirit. The letter killeth, the spirit maketh alive.

It would seem to follow that, but for the saving provision made for complainant below by the Act he challenges, he would not only be subject to removal for violation of the second clause of Section 7, Article VI, but might be held to have vacated his office of Judge by acceptance of an imcompatible position under the United States.

Moreover, cumulative, and, perhaps, even more conclusive support is found for the argument that complainant is in no position to seek in equity the relief he prays for — to challenge the provision of this Act which diverts temporarily the emoluments of the office to the appointee who is performing all of its duties, during the non-performance and absence of complainant, — in the express language in Section ten of the legislative Act creating the office which he holds. Here it is provided that, "said judges shall give all their working time to the duties of their office." May complainant allege that, for whatever cause, he is now not giving, and probably will not give for a long though uncertain period, any of his "work and time to the...