Putnam County v. White County

• Decision Date: 30 April 1918
• Citation: 203 S.W. 334,140 Tenn. 19
• Parties: PUTNAM COUNTY v. WHITE COUNTY.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

203 S.W. 334

140 Tenn. 19

PUTNAM COUNTY v. WHITE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 30, 1918

Appeal from Chancery Court, Putnam County; A. H. Roberts Chancellor.

Controversy between Putnam County and White County. From decree rendered both parties appeal. Affirmed and remanded.

O. K Holladay, E. H. Boyd, and Sam Edward, all of Cookeville, for appellant.

L. D Hill, of Sparta, and J. H. Anderson, of Knoxville, for appellee.

GREEN J.

This litigation involves a controversy over the boundary between Putnam county and White county. It is not necessary to make a detailed statement of the pleadings. The facts in the case were found by the chancellor, and this finding is made a part of the record in lieu of a bill of exceptions.

The decree of the chancellor was not satisfactory to either party, and both have appealed. The constitutionality of two acts of the Legislature is involved, and the case has accordingly come directly to this court. Three strips of land are involved. On one of these strips is located the mining town of Ravenscroft, and we will first consider the controversy over this tract.

From the findings of the chancellor and elsewhere in the record, we ascertain these facts, as to the Ravenscroft land:

Putnam county was finally established by an act of the Legislature passed in the year 1854 (Acts 1853-54, c. 320); a previous act having been held invalid. Commissioners were appointed by this act to survey and fix the boundary lines of said county. This commission made a survey, which has been filed in this case, and the lines run and marked by them included the Ravenscroft territory within the boundaries of Putnam county. It was formerly within White county. At the time of the survey and until within recent years, this section was wild, uninclosed, and sparsely populated. The line thus located by these surveyors was less than 12 miles from Sparta, the county seat of White county. Until the year 1902, White county, regardless of this survey, exercised exclusive sovereignty of this territory, the same having been up to that time of small value. In 1902, Putnam county made an official survey of the lines between it and White county, when it was ascertained that this Ravenscroft section, over which White county had been exercising sovereignty, was really, by the original survey, included within the boundary of Putnam county. Upon learning this fact the Putnam county court asserted the claim of Putnam county to this territory, and from that date up until the passage of chapter 477 of the Private Acts of 1915 Putnam county exercised exclusive sovereignty over the said territory, and White county acquiesced therein. Upon the passage of the aforesaid act of 1915, both counties asserted their claims to this territory, and the controversy herein was precipitated, Putnam county opening the litigation by a bill to enjoin the claims of White county.

In the year 1870, when the present Constitution of the state of Tennessee was adopted, neither Putnam county nor White county had an area of as much as 360 square miles, and neither county since the adoption of that Constitution has had an area of as much as 360 square miles.

Chapter 477 of the Private Acts of 1915 is entitled "An act to change the county line between White and Putnam counties." This statute enacts that the line between said counties be changed so as to place within the boundary of White county what is known as the Ravenscroft strip, consisting of about 340 acres, and to place within the boundary of Putnam county certain other lands indicated, amounting to about 360 acres. The Ravenscroft strip is valuable property, being the site of a coal mine, and having thereon a considerable town. The land transferred by this act from White county to Putnam county is uninhabited and of little value.

The chancellor upheld the validity of this statute, which was attacked by Putnam county, decreed the Ravenscroft land to White county and the 360-acre tract to Putnam, and from his action in this respect, Putnam county has appealed.

We think the chancellor was correct. Putnam county has never acquired a right to the land known as Ravenscroft strip.

Putnam county did not get this territory by the act of 1854, because if said statute undertook to include said territory within the limits of Putnam county, it was unconstitutional.

The Constitution of 1834 (article 10, § 4) provided that no line of any new county should approach the courthouse of any old county from which it was taken nearer than 12 miles. As we have heretofore seen, the line run by the commissioners through this controverted section did approach the courthouse of White county nearer than 12 miles. That is to say, the Ravenscroft strip was in less than 12 miles of Sparta.

This section of the Constitution of 1834 was repeatedly construed by this court, and Acts of the Legislature in violation thereof were uniformly held invalid when assailed by the old counties whose territory had been unlawfully detached. Ford v. Farmer, 9 Humph. (28 Tenn.) 152; Gotcher v. Burrows, 9 Humph. (28 Tenn.) 585; Maury County v. Lewis County, 1 Swan (31 Tenn.) 236; Marion County v. Grundy County, 5 Sneed (37 Tenn.) 490; Bridgenor v. Rodgers, 1 Cold. (41 Tenn.) 259.

If the act of 1854 authorized the commissioners to include the Ravenscroft strip within the limits of Putnam county, which is denied, said act was invalid for the reasons stated. If the commissioners erroneously included said strip of territory within Putnam county, their act was likewise invalid, and without authority.

So that Putnam county never acquired this land by reason of any act of the Legislature.

Neither did Putnam county acquire said land in dispute by possession or by acts of dominion thereover. The fact as found is that White county did not recognize any claim of Putnam county to this strip of land, but White county continued to exercise sovereignty over same up until the year 1902, more than 48 years after Putnam county was established.

Nor did Putnam county acquire the Ravenscroft strip by the assertion of dominion from the year 1902 up to the passage of the act of 1915.

Although White county submitted to this encroachment of Putnam county for about 13 years and was guilty of laches, still under the rule announced by this court in Roane County v. Anderson County, 89 Tenn. 259, 267, 14 S.W. 1079, it was competent for the Legislature to definitely settle the boundary line between the two counties so as to confer the Ravenscroft strip upon White county. This is true because said land was anciently within the domain of White county, and had been unlawfully and without authority of law claimed and controlled by Putnam county. Although the laches of White county might have barred a suit by it to recover the land, such laches did not operate to defeat its legal right to the territory, but only deprived it of its remedy. The legislative act was available as a defense to the suit of Putnam county.

In Roane County v. Anderson County, supra, under a similar state of facts, this court said of Anderson county:

"Having recovered territory by an act of legislation, it is, as to such territory, seeking no affirmative relief. Laches would not operate to bar a defense to a suit seking to recover territory annexed by an act of legislative power. So that, if Anderson county can show that the territory annexed by this act was anciently within its domain, and has been unlawfully and without authority of law claimed and controlled by Roane, the defense will be effective, for laches has not operated to defeat the legal right, but had deprived it of legal remedy."

The Ravenscroft land has been reassigned to White county by the act of 1915. Putnam county has acquired no possessory right to this territory which it can successfully assert. It had exercised dominion over these lands for about 13 years at the time of this litigation. White county had only acquiesced in such claims for the same length of time.

We have recently held in Putnam County v. Smith County, 129 Tenn. 394, 164 S.W. 1147, that such laches and acquiescence must exist for a period of 20 years in order to estop a complaining county from recovering its territory over which another county had unlawfully asserted dominion. Less laches would certainly not bar a defense.

It is insisted in behalf of Putnam county that its boundaries were recognized by the Constitution of 1870, and that, inasmuch as its area is less than 360 square miles, the Legislature was without power to reduce its territorial limits by the act of 1915. Const. 1870, art. 10, § 4. For this we are referred to McMillan v. Hannah, 106 Tenn. 689, 61 S.W. 1020. In that case the court held the declaration of the Constitution of 1870 that Cheatham was a constitutional county made all lands then actually included within its territorial limits part of the county, regardless of whether they were originally assigned to that county by a valid law or not.

McMillan v. Hannah has somewhat restricted in its scope by Putnam County v. Smith County, supra. Moreover, the former case is not in point...