Mengel Box Co. v. Fowlkes

• Decision Date: 27 May 1916
• Citation: 186 S.W. 91,135 Tenn. 202
• Parties: MENGEL BOX CO. v. FOWLKES ET AL.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

186 S.W. 91

135 Tenn. 202

MENGEL BOX CO. v. FOWLKES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 27, 1916

Appeal from Chancery Court, Dyer County; Colin P. McKinney Chancellor.

Action by the Mengel Box Company against W. A. Fowlkes and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

S. G Latta, of Dyersburg, for appellants.

Randolph & Randolph, of Memphis, and Ashley & Campbell, of Dyersburg for appellee.

WILLIAMS J.

The bill of complaint was filed by the Mengel Box Company to enjoin action under what is claimed to be a void act of the Legislature (Private Acts 1915, c. 186), which action, it is alleged, will be detrimental to its interests as a large landowner.

The Legislature at its last session passed a bill creating the Dyer levee and drainage district for the purpose of authorizing the building of a levee and the draining, on the assessment plan, of a territory of about 200,000 acres lying along the Mississippi river, and extending from a point near Reelfoot Lake down to the mouth of Obion river.

The act names three directors to proceed to establish the district and bring about an execution of the design. They began to do so, giving notice to the landowners in the district as the act provides; whereupon the bill of complaint was filed. A demurrer to it was overruled by the chancellor, who permitted an appeal to be prosecuted.

The principal attack made on the constitutionality of the act is based on those sections which make provision for a court adjudication of property rights, assessments, etc. It is urged by complainant company that there was not adopted by the Legislature any existing court or judicial machinery for this purpose, but that an effort was made to create a new and special tribunal for the trial of all matters concerning the district and involved in dispute, and that the legislative bill therefore embraced more than one subject, that the creation of such a new tribunal was not set out in caption and that the bill was not constitutionally passed because of a violation of article 2, § 17, of the Constitution.

Counsel of the defendants concede, as he must, that if a new court is so provided for, the act must fall for the reason just stated.

The caption of the bill is in the following language:

"An act to establish a levee and drainage district to be known as the Dyer levee and drainage district, within the following boundaries, to wit: [Here reciting them]--for the purpose of erecting a levee from the high ground south of Tiptonville, Tennessee, to the mouth of the Obion river, and for the purpose of draining and the reclamation of the wet and swamp lands within such boundaries, and prescribe the method of doing so, and providing for the assessment and collection of the cost and expense of such improvement, and the manner of obtaining the means and funds therefor."

Section 4 of the act is in the following language:

"That at the time and place fixed by the said board of directors in the said publication, a court composed of the chairman or judges of the county courts of the counties of Dyer, Lake and Obion shall sit for the purpose of hearing the objections of any person or persons who may file the same. The said court so composed of said chairman or judges of the said counties or any two of them shall sit on the second Tuesday of each month in the courthouse at Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the purpose of hearing and determining such questions as may be necessary to be passed upon under this act, and their findings and decrees shall be entered on the minute books of the county court of Dyer

...