Holland v. Parker

17 S.W.2d 926, 159 Tenn. 306, 6 Smith & H. 306, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 86
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedJune 17, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 17 S.W.2d 926 (Holland v. Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Holland v. Parker, 17 S.W.2d 926, 159 Tenn. 306, 6 Smith & H. 306, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 86 (Tenn. 1929).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Ghambltss

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*307 This is a suit challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 149 of the Private Acts of 1927, applicable by population classification to Benton County, providing for the election of the County Superintendent of Public Schools and the County Board of Education by the legal voters of the County. It is insisted that the bill violates Section 8, Article 1, of the Constitution, as construed by this Court recently in Smith v. Sells, 156 Tenn., 539, wherein an act affecting the Board of Education for Pickett County was considered. The changes proposed were held to be colorable only, and for the manifest purpose of removing from office the board members affected, and the act therefore unconstitutional.

The Chancellor was of opinion that the changes made by the act now before us were substantial, not colorable merely, and he dismissed the bill. In this we think he was correct.

Here at least two changes are made which go to the organic constitution of the Board, in that, (1) the terms of office are changed from seven to two years, and (2) the members and Superintendent are elected by the legal voters of the County, and not, as theretofore, by the County Court. The second of these is clearly fundamental, affecting the source of authority of the officers. In Haggard v. Gallien, 157 Tenn., 269, we distinguished the case of Smith v. Sells, supra, on its facts and said: “The basic structure of the governmental form is necessarily affected by a change in the manner of selection of the members of the governing body, such as a change from an appointive to an elective membership,” etc. Citing Goetz v. Smith, 152 Tenn., 462. Each case of the general character now before us stands or falls on its own facts. The decree of the Chancellor is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Black v. Wilson
188 S.W.2d 609 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1945)
Kyle v. Marcom
178 S.W.2d 618 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1944)
Keith v. Beasley
152 S.W.2d 618 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1941)
Henry v. Abernathy
136 S.W.2d 51 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1940)
Baird v. Baird
134 S.W.2d 166 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1939)
Townsend v. Ray
130 S.W.2d 96 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1939)
State Ex Rel. v. Link
111 S.W.2d 1024 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1938)
Gallien v. Miller
92 S.W.2d 403 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1936)
Caldwell v. Lyon
80 S.W.2d 80 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1935)
Traywick v. Gilkey
71 S.W.2d 676 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1934)
Loring v. McGinness
44 S.W.2d 314 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 S.W.2d 926, 159 Tenn. 306, 6 Smith & H. 306, 1928 Tenn. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-parker-tenn-1929.