Vandergriff v. Seeber

• Decision Date: 11 December 1948
• Citation: 216 S.W.2d 311
• Parties: VANDERGRIFF v. SEEBER.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

216 S.W.2d 311

VANDERGRIFF v.SEEBER.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 11, 1948.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Anderson County; J. R. Ketron, Chancellor.

Mandamus by Bernard F. Vandergriff, Sheriff, against T. L. Seeber, County Judge. Mandamus was granted and the defendant applied for supersedeas and for a writ of error which were granted.

Decree in accordance with opinion.

Sidney Davis, of Clinton, for appellant.

Walter Fisher, of Clinton, for appellee.

BURNETT, Justice.

There are two cases in this appeal bearing the same style but numbered 5904 and 5905, respectively, in the court below.

In the first case filed, the Sheriff has mandamused the county judge to pay him out of the public funds of Anderson County the sum of three hundred and eighty six dollars and ninety seven cents ($386.97), claimed as a shortage due the Sheriff by reason of certain expenses of the office and claimed to be due pursuant to section 2, chapter 156 of the Public Acts of 1947.The constitutionality of this Act is duly questioned.

In the second case, the Sheriff asked for and was granted, a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the county judge to pay his salary of sixteen hundred and sixty six dollars and sixty four cents ($1666.64), being the salary claimed due the said Sheriff during a period of four months while he was out of office due to ouster proceedings.The Sheriff was reinstated in office by this Court on appeal.

In both cases the Chancellor granted the peremptory writ of mandamus as requested.The county judge, in his official capacity, made due application to a member of this Court for supersedeas and for a writ of error in each case which were granted.The cases have since been argued before the entire court.

The determinative question in the first case is likewise largely determinative of the second case.The question is: Is Section 2, Chapter 156 of the Public Acts of 1947, constitutional and applicable to the Sheriff of Anderson County, Tennessee?

The caption and the Act are as follows:

"An Act To Amend Sections 10734and10743 of the Code of Tennessee as set out in Chapter 13 of Title 12 of said Code.

"Section 1.Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That Section 10734 of the Code of Tennessee, as set out in Chapter 13 of Title 12 of said Code, be amended by adding at the end of said Section the following:

"`That in addition to the deputies and assistants herein provided for in said Chapter 13 or any amendment thereto, for the Sheriffs of the various counties in the State, the Sheriffs in counties having a population of not less than 178,000 and not more than 180,000, according to the Federal Census of 1940 or any subsequent Federal Census, shall be authorized and empowered to appoint a Chief Deputy Sheriff whose salary shall be two Hundred Fifty ($250.00) Dollars per month, and to employ sufficient number of Deputies Sheriff to wait upon the Criminal Courts of the County and to employ sufficient number of Deputies Sheriff to be attached to the services incident to the jail and commonly known as the jail crew, whose compensation shall be One Hundred Seventy-Five ($175.00) Dollars per month, payable in the manner and form as their present compensation is now paid, providing, however, that the entire number of salaried Deputies under said Chapter 13 and this Act shall not exceed thirty-five (35).'

"Sec. 2.Be it further enacted, That Section 10743 of the Code of Tennessee as set out in Chapter 13 of Title 12 of said Code be amended by adding at the end of said Section the following:

"`Provided, that in the event that the fees, etc., collected by the Sheriffs, in any of the counties within the provisions of this Act do not in any month amount to a sum sufficient to pay all other necessary and legitimate expenses incurred in the proper and efficient administration of his office, including the compensation of the Sheriff, then the shortage of such compensation and expenses as herein provided shall be paid out of the public funds of said counties each month.'

"Sec. 3.Be it further enacted, That all laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act be, and the same are hereby repealed, and this Act shall take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it."

The first suit is bottomed on the applicability of section 2 of the act above quoted to Anderson County, a county of the third class within the purview of Chapter 13,Title 12 of the Code of Tennessee 1932 as set forth in Section 10727 of said Code.The theory of the bill is that under section 2 of the above quoted act the complaining sheriff is entitled to a flat salary of at least $5000.00 per year or $416.16 per month; that for the month of December 1947, his legitimate expenses plus his salary, exceed the collected fees of his office by the sum of $242.73, and that therefore the county owes him this amount, to bring his monthly salary up to $416.16.It is also averred that by reason of an admitted unconstitutional private act the county holds the sum of $126.24 which belongs to the Sheriff.

The second suit is likewise bottomed on section 2 of the act above quoted.The theory of this suit is that the Sheriff was unlawfully ousted from his office for a period of four months and that he is entitled to pay for these four months based on a fixed salary as set forth in our narration of suit one.

Chapter 13 of Title 12 of the Code of Tennessee 1932 is a codification of the Anti-Fee Bill under Code, Sections 10725-10748 inclusive.The various sections of the Anti-Fee Bill have been ably summarized in an opinion of this Court as prepared by the late Mr. Justice Cook in Jellicorse, County Trustee v. Russell, 156 Tenn. 411, 1 S.W.2d 1011, 1012, wherein it is said:

"When considered altogether, the provisions of the act very clearly express the intention of the Legislature to appropriate to the county wherein they arise all fees derived from a county office in excess of expenses of the office and the maximum salary.Both the salary and office expenses, except as otherwise provided by enabling acts such as section 6393, Shannon's Code, must be derived from the fees and emoluments of the office, and the act nowhere authorizes any officer to make a charge for salaries and premiums on bonds against county revenue derived from taxation."(Emphasis ours.)

Code Section 10743 provides:

"In case the fees, etc., collected by such officer do not amount to a sum sufficient to pay the expenses of the office as herein provided, together with the salary or salaries of such deputy or deputies and clerks, as may be allowed said office, and also the salary of said officer as provided, then the said officer shall not receive the salary as herein...