132 Tenn. 169 | Tenn. | 1915
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This cause, for good and sufficient reasons to the court appearing, has been advanced and heard at our 1915 Jackson term, under the provisions of our statutes.
On May 1, 1915, August Todtenhausen, on behalf of himself and all other taxpayers of Knox county, filed
The above act is entitled:
“An act to authorize Knox county Tennessee, acting through its quarterly court, to issue and sell $500,000 of its five per cent interest bearing coupon bonds for the purpose of building and repairing pike roads and bridges in said county; to provide for the payment of interest on said bonds, to pay off and retire said bonds at maturity, and to provide a sinking fund for said purpose; to create a good roads commission for said county, and fix and define its powers, duties, and responsibilities; to provide for the safekeeping and disbursement of the proceeds of the sale of said bonds, and to repeal all laws in conflict with this act. ’ ’
The defendants demurred to the bill, and the chancellor, on May 10,1915; sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill. Todtenhausen appealed to this court, and by his assignment of errors, the following questions are presented:
First. It is said the act violates article 11, section 8, of the constitution of Tennessee, in that the act is a special one for the benefit of Knox county, and that said article of the constitution withholds from the legislature powers to suspend any general law for the
Second. It was averred in the bill of complaint, on information and belief, that the act in question was not passed in the manner required by section 18, article 2, of the constitution, and therefore that the act never became a law. When such a question as this arises, whether upon demurrer or other form of pleading, the judicial knowledge of the court is brought into play, and the journals of the house and of the senate are looked to, and from them the question is determined by the court. Therefore it is a mistake to suppose that the demurrer admitted the truth of the averment of the bill upon this point. “The demurrer does
Third. Section 23 of the act in question is as follows :
“Be it further enacted that said good roads commission is hereby given full authority, control and supervision of all such roads as it shall elect to build or repair while said road is being constructed or repaired, after which time the control and supervision of said road shall belong to the regular road commission of Knox county. ’ ’
It is insisted that the legislation accomplished by section 23 above set out is not expressed in the title of the act, and violates that part of section 17, article 2, of the constitution which provides that:
“No bill shall become a law which embraces more than one subject, that subject to be expressed in the title.”
One of the purposes of the act expressed in its title is as follows:
“To create a good roads commission for said county, and fix and define its powers, duties and responsibilities.”
See the caption above copied. Manifestly section 23 of the act falls under, and is expressed by, the last above quoted part of the title, and section 23 in part fixes and defines the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the commission, so we think there is no merit in this point. But it is said that section 23 is void for uncertainty because it fails to fix the time at which
Fourth. It is next said that the act contravenes article 11, section 17, of the constitution which provides :
“No county office created by the legislature shall be filled otherwise than by the people or the county court. ’ ’
This insistence rests upon the fact that by the tenth section of the act five persons are therein named as commissioners empowered to carry out its provisions, and by the eleventh section of the act it is provided:
“Should any vacancy occur in said commission by death, resignation, or removal, said vacancy shall be be filled by the remaining commissioners until the quarterly county court may fill such vacancy,” etc.
'— and the point is made that the commissioners are county officers within the meaning of the above quoted provision of the constitution. The precise question here presented was ruled upon by us in R. J. Fisher
“In reply to this contention we may observe that we do not regard these pike commissioners as county officers in the constitutional sense of the term. The duties of these commissioners are not permanent. The commission was instituted merely to superintend the expenditure of said issue upon certain named roads in McMinn county. These commissioners are not authorized to exercise any political or governmental county functions. Their employment is temporary, and for a single object. Many of the States have constitutional provisions as to the filling of county offices similar to ours, and this question has arisen in many other jurisdictions” (citing 19 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law [1 Ed.], pp. 382-390; State v. Kenyon, 7 O., 562; Sheboygan v. Parker, 3 Wall., 93, 18 L. Ed., 33; Liebman v. San Francisco (C. C.), 24 Fed., 719; Bunn v. People, 45 Ill., 408; State v. Lamantia, 33 La. Ann., 449; Lewis v. Jersey City, 51 N. J. Law, 242; 17 Atl., 112; Horton v. Thompson, 71 N. Y., 521; Attorney-General v. McCaughey, 21 R. I., 341, 43 Atl., 648).
See, note, 63 Am. St. Rep., 187.
So we hold that the commissioners named by the present act are not county officers within the meaning of the seventeenth section of article 11 of the constitution.
Fifth. It is said that the act also violates the last above section of the constitution, in that it
Sixth. It is next said, and finally, that the act violates article 11, section 17, of the constitution, in that the good roads commissioners are, by the act, appointed for life, but we failed to find any such provision in the act. We have already indicated our views of the purpose of the act, as to the term of service of the commissioners. Certainly, as we construe the act, it is not in contravention of article 11, section 17. There is nothing in the act, nor in its purpose, to indicate that the commissioners are appointed for life.
The decree of the chancellor was correct, and it is affirmed at appellant’s cost.