Gilbreath v. Willett

• Decision Date: 22 May 1923
• Citation: 251 S.W. 910,148 Tenn. 92
• Parties: GILBREATH v. WILLETT ET AL.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

251 S.W. 910

148 Tenn. 92

GILBREATH v. WILLETT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 22, 1923

Error to Chancery Court, Washington County; Hal H. Haynes Chancellor.

Suit by Sidney G. Gilbreath against Chas. L. Willett and others, in which defendants made application for writs of certiorari and supersedeas to review an interlocutory decree of the chancery court refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction. Dismissed.

Frank M. Thompson, Atty. Gen., and Divine & Guinn, of Johnson City for Chas. L. Willett and others.

MALONE Special Judge.

This is an application by the defendants Willett and others for writs of certiorari and supersedeas to review an interlocutory decree of the chancery court of Washington county, refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction sought and obtained by the complainant Gilbreath.

Shortly before the adjournment of the General Assembly of the state at its 1923 session, a joint resolution, No. 47, was passed and signed by the speakers of the two houses, but not by the Governor.

By this resolution a committee was created, charged with the duty of investigating the conduct of the complainant Gilbreath president of the East Tennessee State Normal School, with respect to certain charges of immoral conduct which had been made against him.

This resolution gave the speaker of each house the power to appoint two members, and the investigating committee was authorized to carry on its investigation after the final adjournment of the Legislature.

The resolution also gave the committee power to summon and examine witnesses; to examine the books, records, and other documents of the school; to employ an expert stenographer to take down the evidence introduced before the committee; and it was given the power to punish for contempt any witness who should fail to obey a summons from the committee.

The committee was given authority to visit the East Tennessee Normal School for the purpose of gathering evidence, and all other general powers necessary to make a complete investigation of said charges, and to report its findings thereon.

It was further resolved:

"That said committee meet and conduct said investigation immediately upon the final adjournment of the Legislature and report their findings to the Governor as soon as possible, who upon said report shall make the proper recommendations based upon said recommendation to the State Board of Education."

The bill charges that while the resolution provided for only two members from each house, the speaker of the House appointed three members on said committee, to wit, the defendants Charles Willett, H. M. Candler, and J. W. Hamilton; that the speaker of the Senate appointed the other two defendants, Jno. D. Wiseman and E. E. Butler.

Under date of April 14, 1923, four members of said committee, to wit, the defendants Willett, Wiseman, Candler, and Butler, served a formal notice upon the complainant as president of the East Tennessee State Normal that--

"The committee appointed to investigate and report on certain alleged conditions existing at said normal, will convene for the purpose in Johnson City, Tennessee, on Tuesday, April 17, 1923, at 10:00 o'clock a. m." Thereupon, on April 17, 1923, the original bill herein was filed by the complainant Gilbreath as a citizen and taxpayer, and as president of the East Tennessee State Normal School against the four members above mentioned, and also J. W. Hamilton of Hawkins county (the third man appointed by the speaker of the House) "as individuals and as a purported committee of the General Assembly of the state of Tennessee, sitting and attempting to hold sessions, as such committee, at Johnson City, Tennessee."

The bill recited the passage of the joint resolution above mentioned and various other proceedings of the Legislature preliminary thereto, not necessary to be here reviewed, and attacked the validity of the resolution and of the proposed action of the committee, alleging their unconstitutionality and illegality on numerous grounds.

It was stated that, by reason of certain statutes, the management and control of all state normal schools were placed in the hands and under the power of the State Board of Education.

It is further said:

"Complainant alleges that he has a contract with said board, duly executed thereby, by which he was employed by said board to take hold and administer the affairs of the East Tennessee State Normal School as its president, and to do and perform the services and duties prescribed by said contract, and by law, for the term of three years from the date of said contract, which will not expire until the 30th day of June, 1924, so that he now holds and is bound by and is entitled to the obligations and rights created and assumed by said instrument. He is entitled to retain said office for the remainder of said period of three years, which term will not expire until the date last above given. He is entitled to be paid the salary therein agreed upon and to receive the emoluments belonging to the office and position conferred upon him by said board and said contract; in which said office, position, and employment he has vested rights and franchises, of which he cannot be deprived, except by due process of law."

After characterizing the charges which had been made as being based on mere rumors and reports, the complainant says in his bill:

"In fact, being ignorant of what the charges consist, he cannot answer them, except by a general denial of whatever the charges may allege, if they allege anything. He has been at the head of said school, as its president, for 13 years; and, while he has made some enemies who have been or are still seeking to injure him in any possible way, even resorting to means and practices which can only be characterized as base, false, cowardly, and contemptible, still he is trusted, upheld, supported, and declared to be both competent and upright in his position in the school and in his private life, by the faculty and student body of the institution, and by the majority of the people in his community, as he is informed and believes.

Nevertheless, in order that even the appearance of evil may not be alleged by his ill wishers, and in order that his character shall be entirely vindicated in the sight of all men, he has demanded, and still does demand, a full, free, exhaustive, and complete investigation of every charge made against him, whether based on rumor, or other things. All that he asks for is a tribunal, clothed with the power to do so, which will give a definite statement of each and every particular offense with which he is charged; that will bring his accusers and their witnesses face to face with him and his witnesses, and which will give him a fair and impartial trial."

It is further insisted by the complainant:

"* * * That the General Assembly had no power to appoint said committee and to give it the powers attempted to be given, because opposed to the Constitution and laws of the state; because an attempt to give to a committee of the General Assembly arbitrary, oppressive, inquisitorial, and judicial powers of a matter, the control and regulation of which belonged to another department of the government; because opposed to the Bill of Rights, and because of being an attempt to deprive complainant of his rights, property, franchise, and office without due process of law.

Complainant further charges that the attempt of said individuals, the defendants above named, or any of them, claiming to be a committee as aforesaid, to organize themselves as such committee, and to bring complainant before them to answer any charges of any character whatever, or to proceed against him in any way, by the taking of testimony or otherwise, is an invasion of his rights which entitled him to come into a court of chancery and seek its injunctive relief against the exercise of illegal, arbitrary, oppressive power against and upon him as is here sought to be done."

Among other grounds urged against the constitutionality of the resolution is the following:

"Said so-called resolution was never signed by the Governor, nor was it ever submitted to him for his signature, as is required by law. It has, therefore, never become operative, but is absolutely void and of no effect."

In the prayer of the bill it was asked:

"That defendants, as a whole, and each of them, in whatever capacity they may assume to act, be enjoined from alleging or prosecuting any charges before themselves as a committee, or otherwise against complainant and particularly charges of immoral conduct as and while being the president of said normal school until the further orders of this court, and that upon final hearing the temporary injunction so granted shall be made perpetual."

A preliminary injunction, in line with the prayer of the bill above quoted, was issued by the chancellor on April 17, 1923, and was served on the defendants Willett, Candler, Wiseman, and Butler on the same day.

On April 18, 1923, the defendants above named filed in the cause the following motion:

"In this cause come the defendants John D. Wiseman, Charles L. Willett, H. M. Candler, and E. E. Butler, and waiving the jurisdictional fact that neither of them were in Washington county, Tennessee, when the fiat for injunction was granted in this case, in so far as they have the legal right and authority to waive the same, come now and move the court to dissolve the injunction in this cause, on the ground that there is no equity in the face of the bill."

After hearing argument, the chancellor made an interlocutory decree on the 21st day of April, 1923, incorporating therein his opinion, by the terms of which he denied the defendant's motion, and refused an appeal to this court...