Powers v. Wiseman

• Decision Date: 27 January 1934
• Citation: 67 S.W.2d 142
• Parties: POWERS et al. v. WISEMAN, County Judge, et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

67 S.W.2d 142

POWERS et al. v. WISEMAN, County Judge, et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 27, 1934.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Rutherford County; Thos. B. Lytle, Chancellor.

Suit by N. W. Powers and others against John D. Wiseman, County Judge, and others. From a decree of dismissal, complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

C. C. Jackson, of Maryville, for appellants.

A. L. Todd and C. L. Cummings, both of Murfreesboro, for appellees.

COOK, Justice.

By chapter 235, Private Acts of 1931, a county highway system was instituted for Rutherford county, to be under supervision of a county board of road commissioners and a superintendent of roads. By chapter 482, Private Acts of 1933, another and different system was instituted, to be under the control and supervision of the county workhouse commission, an entity authorized by section 12012 of the Code. The county workhouse commission was given supervision of the highway system in addition to supervision of the workhouse, and management of the prisoners.

The complainants who held office under the Act of 1931 challenged the validity of chapter 524, Private Acts of 1933, which repealed the Act of 1931, and of chapter 482 of the Private Acts of 1933, which instituted the new system. The chancellor held chapter 482, Private Acts of 1933, valid and dismissed the bill.

Complainants appealed and insist (1) that the provision of the latter act transferring the duties and powers of the county board of road commissioners to the county workhouse commission was a colorable scheme to deprive them of their office and its emoluments; (2) that the provision conferring power upon the county judge to appoint the four workhouse commissioners to serve until January 1, 1934 (should it appear that they had not already been appointed by the quarterly court), renders the act void because violative of article 11, § 17, of the Constitution, which provides that no office created by the Legislature shall be filled otherwise than by the people or the county court; (3) that the provision making the county judge a member, ex officio, of the commission renders the act void because violative of article 2, § 26, of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall hold more than one lucrative office, and because violative of article 6, § 7, of the Constitution that forbids judges holding any other office of trust or profit.

By chapter 235, Private Acts of 1931, the county board of road commissioners was composed of nine members named in the act, their successors to be elected at the next April term of the quarterly court, from nine zones into which the county was divided by the act. Their compensation was fixed at $2.50 for each day of actual service, and they were authorized to employ a superintendent at a salary of not less than $1,800 nor more than $3,500 a year.

The superintendent was authorized to appoint, with approval of the board, district supervisors, and their pay was prescribed by the act. The superintendent of roads was also authorized to appoint a superintendent of workhouse and the prison guards at a compensation to be fixed by the superintendent of roads and the board. In addition, the superintendent of roads was given authority to...