State v. Ritzius

Decision Date26 March 1932
CitationState v. Ritzius, 47 S.W.2d 558, 164 Tenn. 259 (Tenn. 1932)
PartiesSTATE ex rel. ROLLINGS v. RITZIUS.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Appeal from Chancery Court, Grundy County; T. L. Stewart Chancellor.

Mandamus action by the State, on the relation of J. L. Rollings against Julie Ritzius.From an adverse decree, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Jeff D Fults, of Tracy City, for appellant.

Joseph Higgins, of Nashville, for appellee.

SWIGGART J.

This is an action for the writ of mandamus, to compel the defendant, Mrs. Ritzius, incumbent of the office of county superintendent of Grundy county, to surrender the office to the relator, claiming title thereto by virtue of his election at a regular election held in August, 1930.From a decree sustaining the title of the relator, the defendant has appealed to this court.

While the original contention of Mrs. Ritzius appears to have been grounded upon an alleged lack of qualification on the part of the relator to hold the office, the assignments of error made in this court present only the contention that the relator's election was void because the statute under which it was held, Private Acts 1929, chapter 551, is unconstitutional and void.The constitutionality of this act is, therefore, the only question before this court on the appeal.

We are of the opinion that the statute is a valid enactment.The decree of the chancellor therefore will be affirmed.

The caption of the act under consideration describes it as providing for the election of a county superintendent in counties "having a population of more than 9,750 and less than 9,755 according to the Federal Census of 1920 or any subsequent Federal Census."

In the first section of the body of the act this quoted language is repeated, except the word and figures "of 1920" are omitted.We do not think this discrepancy between the caption and body is material or of any consequence.Reference in the body of the act to the population of the counties to be affected "according to the Federal Census" could only mean the federal census then current, which was the federal census of 1920.It is the duty of the court to give meaning to the words employed, and this is the only reasonable meaning which could be accorded to the language used.

The reference in both the caption and body of the act is to Grundy county which, according to the federal census of 1920, had a population of 9,753.The act affects the county in its governmental capacity, and is therefore to be enforced and construed as if it had referred to Grundy county by name.Nashville, C. & St. L. Railroad v. Marshall County,161 Tenn. 236, 30 S.W.2d 268, and cases therein cited.So construed, the act does not violate the provisions of the Constitution, art. 1, § 8, and article 11,§ 8.

The act does not expressly amend, or purport to amend, previous laws in conflict with it.It was, therefore, not necessary that it recite the title or substance of any law repealed or amended by implication.This is made clear by Wright v. Donaldson,144 Tenn. 255, 264, 265, 230 S.W. 605,

and the cases there cited.

The office of county superintendent of public instruction is a civil office, within the meaning of the constitutional reference to such offices.State ex rel. v. Davis,159 Tenn. 693, 21 S.W.2d 623.The Constitution of Tennessee, art. 7, § 5, directs that elections for civil offices shall be held on the first Thursday in August, and that "the term of each officer so elected shall be computed from the first day of September next succeeding his election."Section 1 of the act under consideration directs that the county superintendent "shall be elected by the qualified voters of such counties at the regular election to be held on the first Thursday in August 1930, and every two years thereafter, and whose term of office shall begin on January 1, 1931 and continue for two years and until his successor shall be elected and qualified."

This provision of the statute clearly directs that the term of the county superintendent for Grundy county shall be two years, beginning on the first day of January next succeeding his election.In this provision the statute is plainly in conflict with the constitutional provision above quoted.

It does not follow, however, that the statute must be destroyed by decree of this court because of this conflict.There is ample authority for giving effect to the constitutional provision and the enforcement of the other portions of the statute.In Maxey v. Powers,117 Tenn. 381, 400, 101 S.W. 181 186, this...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Rushing v. Tennessee Crime Com'n
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1938
    ... ... The caption reads: ...          "An ... Act to provide for the creation and establishment of a ... Crime Commission of the State of Tennessee; to prescribe ... the powers and duties of such Commission; to provide for an ... appropriation for carrying out the provisions of ... name of the State would be read into the statute without ... striking it down. State v. Ritzius, 164 Tenn. 259, ... 265, 47 S.W.2d 558; Maxey v. Powers, 117 Tenn. 381, ... 403, 101 S.W. 181 ...          No ... restraint is imposed ... ...
  • State v. Mayes
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • November 26, 1932
    ... ... term of the office of tax assessor was from the period of his ... election by the quarterly court until January 1, 1933, and, ... if this statute must give way to article 7, § 5, of the ... Constitution, as held in State ex rel. v. Ritzius, ... 164 Tenn. 259, 47 S.W.2d 558, that the office of tax assessor ... is an executive office and the expiration of his term is ... controlled by the second paragraph of article 7, § 5, of the ... Constitution. Article 7, § 5, declares: ...          "Elections ... for judicial and ... ...
  • Farmer v. Wiseman
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1941
    ... ... 117 Tenn. [381], page 400 [101 S.W. 181, at page 186]: ...          "'The ... Constitution is the fundamental law of the state, and every ... statute enacted by the General Assembly must be construed ... in the light of its provisions. Those provisions applicable ... to ... August election shall begin on the succeeding first day of ... September ...          "In ... the case of State v. Ritzius, 164 Tenn. 259 [47 ... S.W.2d 558], it was held that in an Act providing for a ... different beginning of such term the Constitution would be ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT