Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-08-07
DECISIONS OF the SUPREME COURT
OFFICIAL.

Decisions OF Ihe Supreme Court OF tn
state of Tennessee at Knoxville, Sep
tembeR Terms 1850.
benjamin. Brio gnIn e As John Il. RodgerJ It. as.
We are of opinion that upon the frame of th
bill, and amended bills, in this case, Benjamin
Bridgman, in his individual right as a citizen ant
inaabitant of tie county of BledsOe-as well as th
said county in its corporate cspaeity-must be re
gsrded as having proper status IS complainanls
before the court. 1t is true that from anythins
that appears in this record the sad Rrldgman doel
not reside within the 10th civil district of Bedsoe
county, nor is he tax payer therein, and that in
cases heretofore before this court. where private
individual has interYened to stay the organization OF
anew county, upon the ground that it violated some
provisions in the constitution, he lived within the
| territory Of that part of the old county sOrght
| to be detached, and was subject to taAes
IN tsAme; But We do not sec why any
citizen and inhabItant Of tie county he
! be tax payer, is not so agreed by the uncCn
| sttutiOnal prOceedings-ss that he may spply-If
| he does so at the proper time for q remedy. The
spOliaon of his county msst of necessity result in
an increase of taxation TOR, public buildings and
| public expenditures to his injury and wrong.
We therefore think that the said BridgEan being
q citizen Of the said county of BledsOe, and tax
payer therein-upOn the reasoning in some of the
former decisions Of this court, had such interest
in the question, il he had in time as that he
might maintain q suit. 2 Hum. 433- g. do l59.
The original bill was in his name done; out the
amended bills are flied in his name for himself as
well as on behalf of the Justices of the county of
Bedsoe. This makes the county complainant in
its corporate character, the 1stcos beng proper
representatives. Maury county vs.. Lewis county.
Swan 236 The objection that the names of the
justices are used without their assent or authority
situated this case appesrs to US has nothing in
it. because though the authority is called in cues
ton in the answer, the want of it is not shown any
where in the proof. if it were, the question could
not be raised in answer but matter 10 abate-
ment, or thing 20 be taken advantage Of by rule
upon the complainant Bridgeman or his attorney
to show by what authority this suit being pre-
sented in the name of the justices. l Swan 239
1t would not do TO allow such a defence after the
case had been proceeded in to q trial upon its
merits
But the question still remains, whether the eoun-
ty of Sequatchie, befJre the complainant Bridge
filed his bill, (Which the Sth day of
February, 1859 had been organized under the
statutes creating ii, to become political corpO-
ration of the STATE? If according 10 the of
Ford vs.. Farmer, ct. ais Hump l52, he is indi-
UidIl citizen, had right to ask court of Equity
enquire into the validity of the act or to abolish
the Junty. And such We think was the case here.
On the 2Gth Of February, 1856, the Legislature Of
Tennessee passed act detack:ng frem the county
Of Bledsoe the 10th civil district and from the |
county of Marion the Let and md civil districts and
attaching the same to the county of Hamtoq.- |
The Ect to take effect the 2lst of September 1851
On the 9th of December, lS57 the Legislature pass
ed another act creating the county OF Sequatcbie |
constituted of the three civil districts aforesaid by
detaching the same from the county of Hamilton, |
and which act took effect Immediately at its pas
sage; this act created the county of SequatchiP IN
preseHte, by metes and bounds, with all the powers
and privileges and SUBJECT to all the restrictions of
the counties of the State gave it circuit and county
courts, and fixed the time and place of holding |
them-proyided that all officers civil and military
within the fractions Of which said county com
posed, should continue TO hold those offices and
Ill a.
Jurisdiction as other officers in the State, until
others should be elected under the constitution of
the regular election, and that the county court of
said county at Its first session should elect The |
county officers which they were entitled to elect
The act also created certain commissioners by |
name 10 purchase land to locate the seat of Justice
in said county.
The county court in pursuance of the act met the |
first Monday in January. 1858, elected chairman |
aud quorum court, a sheriff, county court clerk |
coroner, surveyor, ranger, register and
tax collector; laid off civil districts, and desig mated
the places of voting, established public roads with
overseers, laid of school DISTRICTS fixed the rate
of taxes, appointed revenue commissioners to lay j
off the town at the county seat and to superintend
the erection of public buildings, chartered bridges,
and sppoint guardians DC. The commissioners ap- |
pointed by the General Assembly, located the cOun>
ty seat purchased tract of land whereOn TO erect
the town. took the title bond of the vender, and
signed the same to the commissioners appointed by
the county court to lay off the town, erect public !
buildings &c. and in all respects discharged their
functions and ceased to have anything further do
as early as February 81. 1858, some days as we |
have seen, prior to the filing Of the bill.
Now it seems to US that on the authority of Ford |
vs. Farmer, ct ais, this q complete organization
of the county, and that Bridgman by not presenting
himself at an earlier day lost the right TO call in
question the validity of this act. We may remark /
too that the county of Sequatehie was, by
the General Assembly of Tennessee in va
rious statutes passed subsequent to the 81 of /
February 1858, recognized as an organized i
valid county. But as to the county of Bledsoe, in
its corporate character, the question is very diff
ferel,t one If her original territory has been re-
duced below its constitutional limits of hundred
and twenty-five square miles or her quail ied UOteTS
have been reduced below thousand. by either /
OF both of the above statutes she is entitled to have
the same restored to her by decree in this cause.
And this is so whether the county Of Sequatchie be
fully organized or not As to this all the authori-
ties are agreed 9 Hump. l52 5S4; Swan 236. |
And the indirectiOn JFted TO in first annexing /
the 10th civil district of Bledsoe county to the
ty of Hamilton and therein converting said district
in a new county of Sequstchie can make no differ
enc' Any violation OF the constitutional rights of |
Bledsoe county, the part of the Legislature, |
either in the establishment OF 8 new county, or |
taking from her portion Of her territory and IN
habitInts, and attaching them to another, or in |
changing her lines are alike to be disregardsd, and
she restored to her constitutional rights Gaeher |
ct sis, BoTrOws ct ais Hump. 5S5. But in so !
restoring BledsOe county 1t is no part Of our busi
ness upon this record, to enquire whether the eoun
ty of Sequatchie has the requisite territory, or
population under the constitution, to enable her I
to be a county not +; nor are we required u !
ascertain whether the constitutional rights of |
either Marion Hamil;Oa county have been |
invaded. They do not complain of any
such infractiOn. and it does not lie in
the mouth Of BledsOe county TO do so; or
to ask that the county of Sequatehie be
vacated. All she can demand is 10 be re-
stored TO her constitutional limits and rights;
and if the county of Sequatche can stand after this
is done it is no concern of hers and in going |
beyond this we hold the Chancellor erred Maury
county vs.. Lewis county, Swan, 226, 24l, We
think he also erred, in declaring upon the proof
this record that the constitutional rights Of BledsOe
county, had been violated, have carefully read
this proof and it certainly dOss render il highly
probable that the territory of BledsGe county had
By mems of the legislation aforesaid been reduced
below six hundred and twenty square miles /; and
her qualified voters below one thousand. But none
Of the witnesses pretend to perfect accuracy.
Their estimates are based upon q survey Of the