State ex rel. Swann v. Burchfield

• Decision Date: 30 September 1883
• Citation: 80 Tenn. 30
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. of ROBERT SWANN v. JOSEPH R. BURCHFIELD.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

80 Tenn. 30

THE STATE ex rel. of ROBERT SWANN

v.JOSEPH R. BURCHFIELD.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1883.

FROM JEFFERSON.

Appeal in error from the Circuit Court of Jefferson county.J. G. ROSE, J.

G. W. PICKLE for Swann.

J. M. MEEK for Burchfield.

DEADERICK, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This bill was filed in the circuit court of Jefferson county, charging that defendant unlawfully holds and exercises the duty of the office of director of the public schools for the 48th school district of said county.

The bill further alleges that defendant was not legally elected and inducted into said office; that the defendant and the relator, Swann, were the only persons voted for, and the officer holding the election gave or returned a majority of one vote in favor of defendant.This, it is alleged, was unjust, inasmuch as one or more of the votes cast was illegal, and the defendant voted for himself, and rejecting these votes, relator was elected.It is also alleged that the officers who held said election were not qualified to do so.

It is likewise charged that said defendant, since his election and induction into office, has forfeited his right to said office by employing his daughter, with the aid of another director, who is a member of his family, and a minor, to teach the public school in his district, by failing and refusing to call the people of the district together for consultation on school interests, and refuses to heed the protests of a large number of persons interested in said school, which is taught in the spring, the busiest season of the year, that few besides his own and relatives' children attend the school.

Upon the foregoing facts the bill prays that the right to said office of school director be determined, and that said Swann be declared entitled to it, or that the election be declared void.But if defendant was legally elected, the bill prays that he may be ejected therefrom as having by his conduct forfeited the office.Injunction was issued to restrain the teacher from being paid her salary, without making her a party.

The defendant demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill, and the complainant appealed to this court.

Upon the hearing of the cause by the Commission of Referees, they held, and so report, that the circuit court had no original jurisdiction to try contested elections of school directors, and that the demurrer was well taken as to the ground of relief first stated in the bill.

As to the second ground of complaint, the Commissioners report that the acts and omissions charged entitle the relator to the relief sought, and so report.

The complainant excepts to the report upon the first ground, and the defendant also excepts to its holding upon the second ground of relief set up in the bill.

The bill is filed under section 3409 et seq. of the Code, ch. 8, entitled “of proceedings in the name of the State against corporations, and to prevent the usurpation of office.”

The bill upon its face shows that defendant received a majority of the votes cast, and was inducted into office.True, it alleges that one of said votes was illegal, and another was cast by defendant himself.But to ascertain whether these...