Prescott v. Duncan
Decision Date | 20 June 1912 |
Citation | 148 S.W. 229 |
Parties | PRESCOTT et al. v. DUNCAN et al. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Fitzhugh & Biggs and G. J. McSpadden, for complainants. Caruthers Ewing, Wright & Wright, W. A. Percy, and R. Lee Bartels, for defendants.
The complainants Prescott and Powell are members of the board of turnpike commissioners of Shelby county, and the complainant Fletcher is bookkeeper of the board upon a salary, and as such and as taxpayers and citizens they file this bill in the Second chancery court at Memphis to impeach chapter 237 of the Acts of 1911 as unconstitutional and void. The defendants, John B. Duncan, Hayden M. McKay, and E. W. Hale, are members of the Shelby county commission created by the act assailed. It is alleged that the complainants were forcibly deprived of their office by the defendants who have usurped the functions and duties of the board of workhouse commissioners, board of turnpike commissioners, the county board of health, and the board of poorhouse commissioners of Shelby county, as well as the duties and functions of the county court of said county, and that they are proceeding to make contracts for the county and to expend under the act assailed large sums of money to the detriment of the complainants and other taxpayers of the county. The bill was demurred to; the demurrer raising the question that the act under which the defendants are claiming office and proceeding to do the things charged in the bill is a valid and constitutional enactment. The case was heard before the Honorable Francis Fentress, chancellor of Division No. 2 in whose court the bill was filed, and the Honorable F. H. Heiskell, chancellor of Division No. 1, sitting together, who, in separate written opinions, held the act to be constitutional. From this decree, the complainants have appealed and assigned errors.
The first error assigned is that the act in substance takes away from the county court practically all of its functions as the administrative agency of the county, and especially as to turnpikes, the workhouse, the county health, the poor, and the poorhouse commissioners, the election of county officers, including the workhouse commissioners, turnpike commission, members of the board of health, and members of the poorhouse commission, election of the subordinate officers of the county, purchasing of county supplies, and the control of the county finances, control of the county buildings, including the courthouse, the control of the dirt roads of the county worked by convicts, including repairing and building county turnpikes, the approval of the bonds of the county officers, the making and signing of contracts for the county, and for county purchases and disbursements of county revenue, which includes substantially all of the duties and functions of the county court, except the levying of taxes, electing a coroner and ranger, and filling the vacancies in county offices in certain contingencies provided by the Constitution and not covered by the act.
The second assignment is that the act is unconstitutional because it authorizes county officers created by the Legislature to be elected by the commissioners, thereby violating section 17 of article 11 of the Constitution which provides that "no county office created by the Legislature shall be filled, otherwise than by the people or the county court."
The title of the act in question is:
"An act to create a board of county commissioners in counties having a population of 190,000 or more according to the federal census of 1910, or any subsequent federal census; to provide for their election, qualification and removal; and to prescribe their duties and fix their compensation."
The act is too voluminous to be set out in full in this opinion, and the following synopsis of its contents is taken from the brief of counsel for complainants:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Darnell v. Shapard
... ... governmental affairs of counties and municipalities. Such ... acts are held valid in Prescott v. Duncan, 126 Tenn ... 140, 148 S.W. 229; Redistricting Cases, 111 Tenn. 234, 80 ... S.W. 750; Bise v. Knox County, 154 Tenn. 483, 290 ... ...
-
State v. Marshall
...whereby the constitution should be examined will aid in that undertaking. The standard was set forth by this Court in Prescott v. Duncan, 126 Tenn. 106, 148 S.W. 229 (1912), in which the Court warned against the temptation to interpret the constitution when interpretation is not needed. The......
-
Summers v. Thompson
...of construction, is the Supreme law of the land...." Pope v. Phifer, 50 Tenn. 682, 686 (1870), overruled on other grounds 126 Tenn. 106, 148 S.W. 229 (1912). "No argument from policy, or inconvenience, or the harmony of the system can be permitted to have any weight in the decision of [a co......
-
Estate Of Joyce Bell v. Shelby County Health Care Corp. D/b/a The Reg'l Med. Ctr., W2008-02213-SC-S09-CV.
...who adopted it. Cleveland Surgery Ctr., L.P. v. Bradley Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 30 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tenn.2000); Prescott v. Duncan, 126 Tenn. 106, 128, 148 S.W. 229, 234 (1912). The text of a constitutional provision is the primary guide to the provision's Cleveland Surgery Ctr., L.P. v. Bradley......