Rhinehart v. State
Decision Date | 20 January 1908 |
Citation | 117 S.W. 508,121 Tenn. 420 |
Parties | RHINEHART v. STATE. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Davidson County; Lytton Taylor, Special Judge.
Action by the State against Marcellus Rhinehart to recover a penalty for refusal of defendant to appear as a witness. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Dancey Fort and H. N. Leech, for appellant.
Charles T. Cates, Jr., Atty. Gen., Jon J. Vertrees, W. O. Vertrees Thos. H. Malone, Jr., and Austin Peay, for the State.
This is an action, begun by motion in the circuit court of Davidson county, to recover of the plaintiff in error, a citizen of Montgomery county, a penalty of $250 for willfully refusing and failing to appear before the Insurance Commissioner of Tennessee at his office in the Capitol at Nashville, in Davidson county, to testify and give evidence in an investigation then being conducted by the commissioner concerning the cause, origin, and circumstances of the burning of the storehouse of W. E. Wall & Son in Montgomery county, under what is known as the "Fire Marshal Law," being chapter 460, p. 1538, of the Acts of 1907, in obedience to a subp na issued by T. Leigh Thompson Deputy Insurance Commissioner, to the sheriff of Montgomery county, for the plaintiff in error, and there served upon him.
The defenses of the plaintiff in error involve the constitutionality and the construction of the statute under which the commissioner was proceeding, and we here state it in full:
This record discloses that the storehouse of W. E. Wall & Son was destroyed by fire in August, 1907, and upon being notified of such fire by the sheriff of Montgomery county the Insurance Commissioner, under authority given him by paragraph 2 of the first section of the statute, directed the sheriff to investigate the fire and report to him. The sheriff made such investigation and report, and soon thereafter Hon. Austin Peay, an attorney at law, residing in Montgomery county, was employed by the Insurance Commissioner to aid in further investigation of the cause, origin, and circumstances of the fire.
On October 11, 1907, G. W. Sanders was indicted in the criminal court of Montgomery county, charged with arson in burning the property, and the case was set for trial on October 29, 1907. It also appears that said Sanders and certain other parties were also indicted in that court upon the charge of destroying plant beds and tobacco crops and that the cases against them were then pending for trial.
Afterwards Mr. T. Leigh Thompson, Deputy Insurance Commissioner, went to Clarksville for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the cause of the fires in question. While so engaged he caused a number of citizens of the county to be subp naed as witnesses to appear before him and testify in relation to the subject of the inquiry, who failed and refused to appear upon advice of counsel for Sanders and the defendants in the other criminal cases mentioned, because it was believed that the investigation was being made to develop the facts in their cases to the prejudice of the defendants. This advice was given upon application of witnesses to counsel.
There was also then existing much lawlessness in Montgomery county believed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Gross Production Tax of Wolverine Oil Co.
... ... collected as herein provided," is not an exemption from ... taxation as prohibited in sections 46, 46U, 50, art. 5, of ... the state Constitution, but a substitution of one form of ... taxation for another upon the conditions named in the act ... Section ... avocation, or, as provided by our Constitution, "upon ... the same class of subjects." Rhinehart v ... State, 121 Tenn. 420, 117 S.W. 508, 17 Ann. Cas. 254; ... State v. Galveston, H. & S. R. Co., 100 Tex. 157, 97 ... S.W. 71; Kehrer v ... ...
-
Lowry, Ins. Com'r. v. City of Clarksdale
...companies is arbitrary, unjust, unequal and discriminatory. Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U.S. 219, 61 L.Ed. 685; Rinehart v. State (Tenn.), 117 S.W. 508. That the legislature may make classifications for the purpose of taxation and that taxes resting on such basis are valid exerci......
-
Palmer v. Southern Exp. Co.
...229, 104 S.W. 242; Railroad v. Byrne, 119 Tenn. 278, 104 S.W. 460; Knoxville v. Gass, 119 Tenn. 438, 104 S.W. 1084; Rhinehart v. State, 121 Tenn. 420, 117 S. W. 508, 17 Ann. Cas. 254; Acklen v. Thompson, 122 Tenn. 43, 126 S.W. 730, 135 Am. St. Rep. 851; Ledgerwood v. Pitts, 122 Tenn. 570, 1......
-
State v. Cumberland Club
... ... Railroad Companies, supra; State v. Brown, 103 Tenn ... 449, 455, 53 S.W. 727; Condon v. Maloney, 108 Tenn ... 82, 98-100, 65 S.W. 871; Arbuckle v. McCutcheon, 111 ... Tenn. 514, 77 S.W. 772; Memphis v. Hastings, 113 ... Tenn. 142, 162-166, 86 S.W. 609; Rhinehart v. State, ... 121 Tenn. 420, 117 S.W. 508, 17 Ann. Cas. 254; Ransom v ... Rutherford County, 123 Tenn. 1, 21, 130 S.W. 1057, Ann ... Cas. 1912B, 1356; Todtenhausen v. Knox County, supra. It may ... be said generally that things naturally and usually connected ... in thought are germane to ... ...