Mayor, Etc., of Chattanooga v. Keith

• Citation: 94 S.W. 62
• Parties: MAYOR, ETC., OF CHATTANOOGA v. KEITH.
• Decision Date: 23 June 1906
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 62

94 S.W. 62 MAYOR, ETC., OF CHATTANOOGA
v.
KEITH. Supreme Court of Tennessee. June 23, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hamilton County.

Action between Hugh Keith and the mayor and aldermen of Chattanooga. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Geo. W. Chamlee, for appellants. Doughty & Titus, for appellee.

BEARD, C. J.

The only question in this case is as to the constitutionality of a clause in the charter of the city of Chattanooga, which is as follows: "In all civil cases in which the fine imposed does not exceed $10, the judgment of the city court shall be final, and no appeal shall be therefrom."

The authorities agree that the remedy by appeal was unknown to the common law, and was only employed for the review of cases of equity, ecclesiastical, and admiralty jurisdiction; writ of error was the remedy to review judgments of the common pleas,

Page 63

and other inferior courts of record when the proceedings were according to the course of common law. 4 Archibald Pr. 4; Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. (U. S.) 321, 1 L. Ed. 619. Consequently the remedy by appeal in actions at law is altogether of constitutional or statutory origin. 2 Cyc. pp. 507-517.

So the authorities held that where the Constitution does not define the specific limits of appellate jurisdiction, this may be abridged or extended by the Legislature as public policy may require; but it has been held, and we think properly, that even in the absence of legislative provision, the establishment of an appellate court by the Constitution is an implied declaration that some right of appeal exists which cannot be unreasonably restricted by statute law. 2 Encyc. Pl. & Pr. 14. Illustrating the first proposition in the above paragraph is the case of Sherer v. Lasson county, 94 Cal. 354, 29 Pac. 716, where it was ruled that a constitutional provision, that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to cases arising in the inferior courts, restricts that jurisdiction to the mode and extent prescribed by the Legislature; and, as authority for the last proposition therein contained, are the cases of People v. Richmond, 16 Colo. 274, 26 Pac. 929, and Branson v. Studabaker, 133 Ind. 147, 33 N. E. 98, in which it is held that from the establishment of an appellate court it is to be implied there shall be a review to a reasonable extent of the judgment of inferior tribunals, and that the right of appeal must be reserved for the Supreme Court, at least in cases...