Patten v. City of Chattanooga
Decision Date | 23 November 1901 |
Citation | 65 S.W. 414,108 Tenn. 197 |
Parties | PATTEN et al. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF CHATTANOOGA et al. [*] |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Hamilton county; Walter S. Bearden Chancellor.
Action by Z. C. Patten and 18 other citizens of Chattanooga purporting to be for themselves and all other taxpayers voters, and property owners thereof, against the mayor and aldermen and city of Chattanooga and others, to have an ordinance declared void which granted the right to certain persons to establish and maintain a telephone, telegraph, and electrical exchange in such city. From a decree of the court of chancery appeals affirming the decree of the chancellor holding the ordinance void, defendants appeal. Reversed.
E. S. Daniels, W. T. Murray, Shepherd & Frierson, and G. B. Murray, for appellants.
Cooke, Swaney & Cooke, Pritchard & Sizer, Thomas & Thomas, C. R. Evans, and A. W. Gaines, for appellees.
On the 20th of November, 1900, the board of aldermen of the city of Chattanooga passed the following ordinance:
Its passage aroused antagonism, and a number of citizens petitioned the mayor to veto it. These petitioners pointed out five objections to the ordinance: (1) Omission of usual provisions fixing maximum rate for telephone service; (2) omission of requirement as to when work on telephone system should begin, and when same should be completed; (3) omission of requirement to restore pavements and streets; (4) omission to prohibit sale to, or consolidation with, old telephone company; (5) that the exclusive feature with respect to the conduit system is unnecessary and dangerous. The mayor thereupon asked the city attorney for an opinion as to what safeguards were necessary to properly protect the city's interests. The latter replied, suggesting provisions covering the very five objections specified in the citizens' petition. The mayor vetoed the ordinance in a lengthy message. He based his veto on the five objections already stated, and assigned the additional reasons: (1) That the ordinance granted more than one franchise, which he deemed unwise; (2) that the plan of arbitration provided was defective, in that it gave the power to the grantees to prevent an arbitration. He specified his objections to the exclusive feature as to conduits as follows: (1) That the ordinance granted the exclusive right to build conduits, lay wires, etc., under the streets, and that therefore no person or company hereafter required or desiring to lay wires or other appliances underground could do so, but such person or company would be forced to use the conduits of Wilcox and associates; (2) that, if the city should desire to build...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Owen of Georgia, Inc. v. Shelby County
...v. Broome, 219 Tenn. 264, 409 S.W.2d 354 (1966); Skelton v. Barnett, 190 Tenn. 70, 227 S.W.2d 774 (1950); Patton v. City of Chattanooga, 108 Tenn. 197, 65 S.W. 414 (1901). The aim of these cases is to insure that the appropriate party, one uniquely positioned by virtue of status or injury, ......
-
Richardson v. Young
... ... to all the citizens of the state. Patton v ... Chattanooga, 108 Tenn. 197, 65 S.W. 414 ... We are ... of opinion that, if these ... Mayor, 60 N. J. Law, 141, 37 A. 732, 64 Am. St. Rep ... 584; State v. City of Duluth, 53 Minn. 238, 55 N.W ... 118, 39 Am. St. Rep. 595; Rich v. McLaurin, 83 Miss ... ...
-
Lovett v. Lynch
...Stutts, 521 S.W.2d 575 (Tenn.1975); Walldorf v. City of Chattanooga, 192 Tenn. 86, 237 S.W.2d 939 (1951): Patton v. Mayor, Etc., City of Chattanooga, 108 Tenn. 197, 65 S.W. 414 (1901)). In this regard, "[i]t is fundamental that plaintiff as a private citizen must show that he is a[d]versely......
-
Wilkins v. Chicago, St. L. & N.O.R. Co.
...purporting to be closed, and hence they have shown no such special or peculiar interest as will enable them to maintain the bill. Patton v. Chattanooga, supra. And see Brumit Railroad, 106 Tenn. 124, 138, 60 S.W. 505, and cases cited. It results that we sustain the second, third, and fourth......