Southern Photo & Blue Print Co. v. Gore

• Decision Date: 02 April 1938
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: SOUTHERN PHOTO & BLUE PRINT CO. et al. v. GORE, Commissioner, et al.

114 S.W.2d 796 SOUTHERN PHOTO & BLUE PRINT CO. et al.
v.
GORE, Commissioner, et al. Supreme Court of Tennessee. April 2, 1938.

Page 797

Appeal from Chancery Court, Davidson County; James B. Newman, Chancellor.

Suit by the Southern Photo & Blue Print Company and another against Albert Gore, Commissioner, etc., and others to recover unemployment compensation assessments which were paid by the complainants under protest. Decree dismissing the bill, and complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

Fred M. Williams, of Chattanooga, for appellants.

Roy H. Beeler, Atty. Gen., Harry Phillips and Edwin F. Hunt, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Alex H. Gray, of Nashville, for appellees.

DeHAVEN, Justice.

Complainants seek by their bill herein to recover certain contributions assessed against them by defendants under the Unemployment Compensation Law of Tennessee, chapter 1, Public Acts, First Extraordinary Session 1936, as amended by chapter 128, Public Acts 1937, and paid by them under protest. It is charged that the act is unconstitutional for reasons hereinafter appearing.

The assessments in question are those for the first six months of 1937.

Complainants are two limited partnerships doing business in the city of Chattanooga. The Southern Photo & Blue Print Company was organized on December 31, 1936, and on the same day acquired all the assets and good will of a corporation of the same name. Taywal, Limited, was organized on June 30, 1937, and on the same day acquired all the assets and good will of the Taywal Corporation. Both of the predecessor corporations employed eight or more individuals. The two successor partnerships did not employ as many as eight individuals for any portion of the year 1937 up to August 13, 1937, when the bill was filed.

It is further charged, in effect, that even if the act is constitutional, complainants are not liable for contributions under a correct interpretation of its provisions and that the contributions in question were wrongfully and illegally exacted; and that the commissioner has abused his authority in promulgating unreasonable rules and regulations requiring contributions to be paid quarterly and monthly instead of annually.

The defendants, not raising any question as to the misjoinder of parties complainant, filed a general demurrer upon two grounds: That the bill shows on its face (1) that the contributions in question were legally and properly collected, and (2) that the Unemployment Compensation Law does not violate any provision of the Constitution of Tennessee nor the Constitution of the United States.

The chancellor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill, holding the act to be constitutional and valid legislation, and ruled that the regulations "are not set out in the bill nor made an exhibit thereto so

Page 798

that any issue is or can be made thereon as to whether illegal and void."

Complainants have appealed to this court and assigned errors.

The first assignment is, in substance, that the chancellor erred in holding the act in question constitutional, because it violates section 17, article 2, of the Constitution of the state...