Title: State v. Superintendent, Davidson County Workhouse

State: tennessee

Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court

Document:

259 S.W.2d 159 (1953) STATE ex rel. HAYWOOD v. SUPERINTENDENT, DAVIDSON COUNTY WORKHOUSE. Supreme Court of Tennessee. March 6, 1953. Rehearing Denied June 5, 1953. *160 Z.T. Osborn, Jr., City Atty., Benson Trimble, Asst. City Atty., Nashville, for appellant. Z. Alexander Looby, Nashville, for appellee. NEIL, Chief Justice. The relator filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, seeking his discharge from the custody of the Superintendent of the Davidson County Workhouse upon the ground that the order committing and sentencing him to the said penal institution for 11 months and 29 days is void, the penalty being imposed by the Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. It is alleged in the petition that Article 51 of Chapter 246 of the Private Acts of 1947 (Charter of the City of Nashville) which provided for a "Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court" is in violation of Article 6, Section 1, of the Constitution of Tennessee. Contention is made by the relator that the aforesaid provision of the Act is repugnant to the constitution for three reasons: The trial judge sustained the petition and entered an order discharging the relator from custody, from which order defendant appealed and assigned the following errors: Article 51 provides "That the Mayor and City Council shall by ordinance provide for a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Other sections provide that the court is vested with jurisdiction to "try and determine and render final judgment in all misdemeanor cases brought before said Court by warrant charging a violation of Section 11370 of the Code", the same being a misdemeanor for any husband wilfully and without good cause to neglect or fail to provide for his wife according to his means, or leaves her destitute, etc., and for the neglect of children. Code § 11379. Article 6, § 1 of the Constitution reads as follows: Article 6, § 4, of the Constitution provides: We readily agree with the insistence that the Legislature may establish, as a part of the governmental machinery of a municipality, "a corporation court" with limited jurisdiction and which would not be a delegation of judicial power within the meaning of the Constitution, such as one imposing a penalty for what is commonly known as small offenses, i.e. the violation of municipal ordinances. The violation of such ordinances partakes more or less of a civil wrong. Bristol v. Burrow, 73 Tenn. 128; Memphis v. Smythe, 104 Tenn. 702, 58 S.W. 215; and numerous other cases cited in 3 Ency. Dig., Tenn.Rep., p. 566. The court with which we are now dealing is not a "corporation" court, but is one which is authorized to enforce the criminal laws of the State affecting juveniles. It exercises judicial power and can have no legal existence unless erected by the Legislature pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution. In the case at bar the statute herein assailed does not create the office of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court but delegates to the Mayor and City Council of Nashville the authority to do so. It then proceeds to prescribe the qualifications of the Judge of said court, which are in direct conflict with Article 6, § 4, of the Constitution in that no provision is made for the election of such judge "by the qualified voters of the district", etc. When the Legislature ordains *162 and establishes "such circuit, chancery, and other inferior courts" it cannot be doubted but that the judges of such courts must be elected by the qualified voters of the district over which the courts have jurisdiction. In speaking of this right of election by qualified voters, it was said in Kivett v. Mason, 185 Tenn. 558, 564, 206 S.W.2d 789, 792, that this right cannot be abridged by the Legislature. "The rule applicable here is that approved by this Court quoting from Cooley's Constitutional Limitations thus: `Another rule of construction is, that when the constitution defines the circumstances under which a right may be exercised * * * the specification is an implied prohibition against legislative interference to add to the condition'. Moore et ux. v. Love, 171 Tenn. 682, 692, 107 S.W.2d 982, 985." In the case before us the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is empowered to "exercise all of the powers and jurisdiction conferred upon Juvenile Courts by law." The Act further provides, "He shall also have such other powers and duties as may be assigned from time to time by ordinance." It thus appears that the court is not only one that is not erected by the Legislature with its jurisdiction fixed and determined, but its existence results from the delegation of legislative authority to a municipality in plain violation of the Constitution of Tennessee. The case of Gregory v. City of Memphis, 157 Tenn. 68, 6 S.W.2d 332, relied on by appellant has no application to the question raised on this appeal. The provision in the Act which confers upon the court "all of the powers and jurisdiction conferred upon Juvenile Courts by law" is an abortive attempt to give it a county-wide jurisdiction as provided by the Juvenile Court Act of 1911, without requiring an election of the judge by the qualified voters of Davidson County. It seeks by indirection to vest the court with jurisdiction to enforce State laws, and otherwise makes it a misdemeanor for any Justice of the Peace of Davidson County to take any action in any case concerning any infant (a person under 17 years old) other than to bind said infant over to the Juvenile Court. Moreover it plainly appears from a casual reading of the Act that the Mayor and City Council have attempted to create a court with far greater power than those constitutionally created by the Legislature. Such a court under our Constitution can have no legal existence and its judgments are void. There is no merit in the contention that the petition of relator should be dismissed because it is a collateral attack upon the Charter of Nashville. In Lynch v. State ex rel. Killebrew, 179 Tenn. 339, 166 S.W.2d 397, 398, it is said: "When the judgment is void, the remedy under it is by habeas corpus. * * * `When the restraint, from which relief is sought by a writ of habeas corpus, proceeds from a judgment erroneous but not void, the writ will not lie. * * * But where the sentence is void, not merely voidable, or the term of imprisonment under it has expired, relief may be had by the writ'". This is not a collateral attack upon the statute, but is a direct attack and is the only remedy available to the relator from a judgment that is wholly void. The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.