Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-01-03
DECIsIoNs OF THE sUPHEME oOunr.
OFFICIAL.
Opinions Of the supreme Court Of the
State Of Tennessee, at Knoxville Sep-
tenber Term, 1859.

OFFICIAL.
Opinions Of the Supreme Court Of the
state OF Tennessee, at Knoxville, Sep-
TENDER Term, 1859.
Evans e.. Shields, and others.
This case seems to have been treated as if it were
q controversy between the parties about matter.
of private right. Such IS not the case It is con
test about the establishment of pablo road to
which justices Of the County Court of Greene-Ebo
are, under our law, the proper representatives of
the public IN this matteF-OUght to have been the
parties on the side, and the plaintiff il error
here, Evans-who impugns the action of said JUS
tees IN regard to the establishment Of said road
the party on the other side
It appears that at the January session 1851 Of the
County Court of Greene, William Shields. together
with several other citizens of said county presented
petition to said court asking the appointment of
jury Of view to lay off third class road therein
specifically described 1t was also asked in the peti-
ton, that the jury should assess such damages as
any owner Of land might, in their opinion, sustain
by reason Of said road running through his land.
The prayer Of the petition granted, and a
jury was appointed accordingly. The jury made
their report in substantial conformity with the peti
ton; and assessed the damages Of Evans-thr6ugh
whose field the road was laid Of-at tOo dollars Be-
fore confirmation of said report, Evans applied to
be made defendant to the proceeding, which was al
lowed andthereupOn he filed exceptions TO the report
and offered prOofImpeaching the same The court dis
all things, except that part assessing the damages Of
two dollars to James Evans; which question ofdam-
ages the court lgt open" and adiudged that Evans
should pay all the costs of the case ThereupOn
Evans prayed an appeal to the Circuit Court which
was granted.
In the Circuit Court the case was docketei. and
prosecuted throughout in the names of William
Shields and others, plaintiffs, and James Evans de-
PENDANT They were likewise regarded as tie real
parties in the County Court and the bond for the
prosecution Of the appeal from the County to the
Circuit court taken. payable to Shields, as was
also the bond for the appeal in this Court
AT the first term of the Circuit Court after the ap-
peal. motion made on behalf of the sD-ealled
plaintiffs, to dismiss the same, the ground that
such final Judgment had been rendered in the case
by the County Court as could be appealed from.
This motion was refused. And thereupon the Judge
then presiding directed that issues of fact should
be submitted TO jury to inquire and determine,
! first whether the road land of, was of public
utility; second whether it had been laid off in the
most convenient place; and third, what damages
Evans would sustain. On the trial of these issues,
a great number Of witnesses were introduced on
both sides. The jury responded affirnatively to
the two first issues; and upon the third they
| assessed the damages at fifteen dollars. Up
on this finding of the jury, the Court adjudged
that the Judgment of the County Court confirm
ing the report of the jury be affirmed and that
| the case be remanded to the County Court to the
end that said road be established according to
! law ana renueIGu judgment against Evans Tor the
costs. But the Court declined to render any judg-
ment in favor Of Evans for the damages found BY
the jury, on the ground that the issue upon that
/ point was an immaterial one.
From this Judgment an appeal in error was pros
| ecuted to this Court.
The entire proceedings in this case, from the re-
turn of the report Of the jury unto the County
| Court, without precedent far we are
aware and in our judgment, are irregular and err
| rOneous.
The Judgment of the County Court, upon the re-
| port OF the jury, was imperfect, and not such a
/ final judgment as an appeal would be from. The
case, far as the matter Of damages is concerned
was left in the County Court indspOSed Of and so
| far as the report was confirmed there was no
| judgment establishing the road. The motion made
in the Circuit Court OdsInss the appeal was there
/ fore proper, and should have been allowed.
But the proceedings are irregular for want of the
proper parties Shields is no party to the record by
! reason of the fact of his having presented the
! petition; and even if it would have been allow
I able to have made him party, instead Of the
justices Of the county court it is enough to say,
that no such thing was done. But it is impossible
to maintain as it seems US, that it would be cOmpe-
tenG for the justices of the county to devOve
the power and trust confded to them. on behalf of
the public to private and irresponsible individual,
and thus in effect leave the important matter Of the
establishment and regulation of the public roads of
the county to be controlled by the interests. preju-
diCes, OF resentmentS Of private individuals This
/
and necessary parties in all such cases. are the JUS
tees on the one side and the party interested or
agFieved in the premises on the other.
On this ground the proceeding ought to have been
either dismissed or amendment made bringing
before the court the proper parties.
Again: we are aware Of no power in the circuit
Judge in such cases, to submit Issues of fact to
Jury The jurisdiction of the roads and other mat
tiers of county police. Is conferred by statute upon
the county courts exclusively. The jurisdiction of
the circuit court in such cases. merely appellate.
IT, therefore the county court had power to have
referred the determination of the facts to jury, 1t
would be different to maintain that the circuit court
on appeal being possessed Of no greater power. IN
the given case would be authorized to do so. But
even if such inherent power were admitted to
exist in the circuit court we think Its exercise
would be inexpedient and ought not TO be sanction
ed If the responsibilities Of this most important
jurisdiction be- at pleasure, transferred from
the courts to juries we will soon find the cOmmu
nitynvOlved in scenes of litigation and strife, alike
intolerabe and ruinOus.
These difficulties seem to have been felt by the
Judge who presided the trial of the case but he
felt himself embarrassed ard committed by the pre-
vious action of different Judge.
The result Is that the judgments of both the Cir
cult and County Courts must be reversed, including
the order Of the County Court confirming, in part,
the report Ct the Jury of View and the case will
be remanded to the County Court for proper pro
ceedngs and judgment upon said report Of the jury
As regards the costs which have accrued since the
return of the report Of the jury OF view, well IN
this Court as in the Circuit and County Courts no
Judgment can be rendered for want OF the proper
parties ard the result is that witnesses and the
officers of court must be left to seek redress from
the parties by whom they were respectively summon
cd or for whom they may have rendered service, 50
far as said parties may be liable by law.
Judgmen: reversed. MCKINNEY.
A true copy. Test: c. ". NELSON, Clerk.