Case Title: Koella v. State

Citation: 405 S.W.2d 184

Docket Number: 

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1966-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
405 S.W.2d 184 (1966) Ernest KOELLA, Jr., In his official capacity as Chairman of the Republican Primary Election Commission, and as Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Executive Committee, Appellant, v. STATE of Tennessee on relation of Dr. Charles R. MOFFETT, Appellee. Supreme Court of Tennessee. July 8, 1966. Rehearing Denied July 22, 1966. *185 E. Bruce Foster, Jerome G. Taylor, Knoxville, M. H. Gamble, Jr., Maryville, *186 and Ray H. Jenkins, Knoxville, for appellant. Paul T. Gillenwater, and Norman L. Griffin, Knoxville, for appellee. CRESON, Justice. This appeal comes from the First Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee. On June 21, 1966, appellee here, petitioner below, Dr. Charles R. Moffett, filed in the First Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, a petition for alternative writ of mandamus. Named as defendant in this petition was appellant here, Ernest Koella, Jr., in his official capacity as Chairman of the Republican Executive Committee. The petitioner below, appellee here, sought, by means of the petition for alternative writ of mandamus, to have his name placed on the official ballot in the August 4, 1966 Republican Primary Election, as a candidate for the office of Governor of the State of Tennessee. The petition alleged that Dr. Charles R. Moffett was of proper age and duly qualified under the laws of the State of Tennessee to seek the office of Governor. It further alleged that the petitioner had, on June 6, 1966, filed his petition with the defendant to have his name placed upon the official ballot in the Republican Primary, as a candidate for the office of Governor of the State of Tennessee. It is also alleged in the petition that the defendant below, Ernest Koella, Jr., in his official capacity, returned said petition, giving as a basis for doing so, that the petition was not acceptable because it was not postmarked or in his hands before 12:00 Midnight, June 6, 1966. On June 24, 1966, Ernest Koella, Jr. filed his answer, which admitted that he was the duly elected Chairman of the Republican Executive Committee and the Republican Primary Election Commission, as alleged. His answer denied that he had received the petition prior to Midnight, June 6, 1966; denied that it was a lawful petition, and denied that a filing on June 6, 1966 complied with the statutory mandate that a nominating petition be filed "at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the election." After a hearing on June 24, 1966, an order was entered June 27, 1966, nunc pro tunc, as of June 24, 1966, granting a peremptory writ of mandamus, and ordering that the name of appellee, Dr. Charles R. Moffett, as a nominee of the Republican party, as a candidate for the office of Governor of Tennessee, be placed on the ballot for the August 4, 1966 Republican Primary Election. Appeal was thereafter timely perfected by appellant to this Court, which heard argument at a Special Session, on June 29, 1966. While the brief filed by the appellant contains three assignments of error, there is really only one question before this Court; that is Where a statute requiring that a qualifying petition for a gubernatorial candidate in a party primary be filed "at least sixty (60) days" before the election date and the sixtieth day before the election falls on Sunday, may the petition be filed the following day though only fifty-nine days before the election? No Bill of Exceptions has been filed in this case and it is before this Court on the original petition, the answer thereto, the judgment of the court below awarding the peremptory writ, and the briefs of the respective parties. No question is made in this Court but that the qualifying petition was filed on June 6, 1966. Neither is any question made as to the sufficiency of the form of the petition. The sole and only question here presented and to be decided is as heretofore stated. T.C.A. § 2-811, which sets out the requirements for the filing of petitions of the sort here involved, reads as follows: Also to be considered in this case is T.C.A. § 1-302, which sets out the method for computation of time, and reads as follows: There is no doubt that if one counts, as one must, from August 4, 1966, backward, excluding the first day but including the last, or, for that matter, if one counts forward, there are only fifty-nine (59) days between August 4, 1966 and June 6, 1966, the sixtieth day being Sunday, June 5. Thus, the question is squarely presented, whether or not the fact that the sixtieth day falls upon a Sunday, allows a potential candidate to file on the following Monday, fifty-nine days prior to the date of the election. In 25 Am.Jur.2d 831, (Elections Sec. 140), it is said: It is further said in 29 C.J.S. Elections § 137, p. 401: In conformity with this is the annotation in 98 A.L.R.2d 1357 (Time Computation First and Last Days, Sec. 6), where the following appears: These text authorities accurately reflect the rule of the vast majority of the case law. North Dakota enacted statutes, both with respect to qualifying petitions and computations of time, quite similar to those in effect in Tennessee. The Supreme Court of North Dakota had before it a case practically identical to the case at bar. In State ex rel. Anderson v. Falley (1900) 9 N.D. 464, 83 N.W. 913, it was reasoned and held: Like reasoning and result are found in the following well-reasoned decisions: Griffin v. Dingley (1896) 114 Cal. 481, 46 P. 457; Steele v. Bartlett (1941) 18 Cal. 2d 573, 116 P.2d 780; Hutchins v. County Clerk of Merced County (1934) 140 Cal. App. 348, 35 P.2d 563; State ex rel. Thatcher v. Brodigan (1914) 37 Nev. 458, 142 P. 520; Cross v. Cohen (1944) 183 Misc. 611, 50 N.Y.S.2d 42; State ex rel. Miller v. Burnham (1910) 20 N.D. 405, 127 N.W. 504; State ex rel. Earley v. Batchelor (1942) 15 Wash. 2d 149, 130 P.2d 72; Donohoe v. Shearer (1958) 53 Wash. 2d 27, 330 P.2d 316, and Seawell v. Gifford (1912) 22 Idaho 295, 125 P. 182. The only case which the research of counsel, and our own, has revealed, in which a Court has differently construed a statute similar to ours is Manning v. Young (1933), 210 Wis. 588, 247 N.W. 61. In that case, the requirement was that the petition be filed "not more than forty nor less than twenty days before the primary therein provided for." Thus, unlike this case, there was a limited period of time during which a petition could be filed. Clearly, the Wisconsin statute fixed a starting point on which petitions for qualification could be filed, and before which they could not be filed. The statute also fixed a cutoff point for the filing of such petitions. If this period ended upon a Sunday or a holiday, the period was extended to the following day. To the contrary, the legislative mandate under Tennessee statutes pertinent to qualifying petitions is that they be filed at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of election; that is, sixty (60) days prior to August 4, 1966. While perhaps not so stated in terms, the essence of the position of appellee here is that T.C.A. § 2-811 and T.C.A. § 1-302 are to be read in pari materia. It is readily apparent that in some, if not many situations, the concepts embodied in these two enactments may come into conflict. It is equally obvious that the time provision contained in T.C.A. § 2-811 is directed to the single subject matter of the primary election; while, on the contrary, the provisions of T.C.A. § 1-302 are pointed to the computation of time generally. The applicable and true rule is then as enunciated in State ex rel. v. Safley, Chairman (1938) 172 Tenn. 385, 112 S.W.2d 831, as follows: The above has been approved as lately as Woodroof v. City of Nashville (1946) 183 Tenn. 483, 192 S.W.2d 1013, in which case the opinion was written for the Court by the late and muchly lamented Chief Justice Grafton Green. In our opinion, the provisions of T.C.A. § 2-811 cannot rightly be considered otherwise than mandatory. They say, without qualification, that a petition such as that here before us shall be filed at least sixty (60) days before such primary election. Whatever method of counting time is used here, the unalterable fact is that the qualifying petition here was filed only fifty-nine (59) days before election. It is pertinent to point out that this record, aside from appellee's brief, is silent as to any official misconduct or mistake which might justifiably be said to have misled the *190 appellee, to his detriment, or to excuse his noncompliance with the mandatory terms of the qualifying statute. The choice of filing time was his. If it appeared on this record, by proper pleading and proof, that the appellee was justifiably misled as to proper calculation of time to file his petition for qualification, by official opinion, this Court would not hesitate to excuse him from literal compliance with the otherwise mandatory Tennessee statute; and would order that such person, or any other similarly situated, be placed upon the ballot. There is ample authority available to the Court for this view. We say again, however, that this record does not present the situation just alluded to. It is also pertinent to note that nothing said in this Opinion has any reference to persons who have filed their petitions and whose names have been placed on the ballot. The only thing now before us is a petition for writ of mandamus; traditionally, a very narrow remedy. It is thus this Court's clear duty to reverse the judgment of the court below, to quash the peremptory writ of mandamus, and to assess the costs against appellee. Judgment will be entered accordingly. BURNETT, C. J., and DYER, J., concur. WHITE and CHATTIN, JJ., not participating. Since the release of our original opinion in this case, we have been presented with a petition to rehear on behalf of Dr. Charles R. Moffett. This petition argues that this Court erred in the following particulars: (1) failed to consider and apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel (2) erred in holding that the computation of time, as set forth in T.C.A. § 1-302, was not applicable (3) erred in finding and holding that the petitioner was not misled as to the last date upon which his petition could be filed, and (4) in restricting the result reached in petitioner's case to that case. Petitioner's first contention, that this Court erred in failing to consider the doctrine of judicial estoppel, is without merit. That argument was made in his original brief and was considered at the time this Court wrote the original opinion. The position taken by Koella on appeal is not inconsistent with his position that the petition was not properly filed on June 6, 1966. This position was contained in Koella's answer filed in the trial court, so there was no attempt by him to raise this issue for the first time on appeal. Petitioner's second contention, that T.C.A. § 1-302 is to be considered in pari materia with T.C.A. § 2-811, was given full and adequate consideration in the original opinion, and nothing contained in the petition to rehear provides any substantial basis for changing the conclusion reached in the original opinion. The third contention made by petitioner here, that he was misled as to the last date upon which his petition could be filed, is outside the scope of the pleadings filed by him in the trial court, and therefore, for the reason stated in the original opinion, is not available to Dr. Moffett on the record as presented to this Court. The petitioner's final insistence is to the effect that his constitutional rights were violated because this Court, in deciding his case, failed to rule upon other cases that might arise. Obviously, this Court cannot adjudge matters that are not before it. Therefore, the fact that this Court refused to exceed its authority and decide matters not properly before it, certainly cannot be said to have, in any way, violated the petitioner's constitutional rights. Petition to rehear is denied. BURNETT, C. J., and DYER, J., concur. WHITE and CHATTIN, JJ., not participating.