Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-04-25

Then next follows the act Of the 9th OF
February, 1869, chap. Al, page o. sec. 2,
which enacts, THAT in all the counties In
this State, where there is a county judge,
and where nc board Of county commission
ers have been established, it shall be the
duty Of such county judge to vote, either In
person or by proxy, all the railroad stock
owned by the county Of which be is judge
in all the elections held or made by the
stockholders Of such railroads" Now 1t Is
manifest that said last act did not, nor was
it intended to, vest the right in the County
Judge of Davidson county to vote in per
son or by proxy the railroad stock owned
by Davidson county, because at the passage
Of said act there was an established Board
Of County Commissioners in Davidson.
The act, by IFS express language, applied
alone to such counties in the State as then
had a county judge, but no established
board Of county commissioners. And by
the provision of said section 8, Of the act Of
1852, such counties in this State as then
owned stock in railroads, but had neither a
county Judge nor an authorized board of
county commissioners, the justices Of tie
peace N the county court when in session
have the right to appoint a proxy to repre-
sent and vote the stock Of the
county in all elections held by the
stockholders Of the railroad company. And
by implication from the language employ
ed in said section 2, 1 infer the Legislature
intended that the established Board Of
County Commissioners, in the counties
having such officers placed over them,
should vote in person or by proxy the stock
owned by such counties. But the act does
not say so, except by implication; and if
it was insisted that it is an implied repeal
Of section l of the act of 1852, the answer
is that the implied repeal of statutes are
not governed in law, unless thetwo statutes
are so opposed to each other that they both
can not staud together. But by said sec
ton 2, of act Of February, 1869, an implied
repeal Of section 8, Of the act Of 1852, or
not, as TO such counties in the State as
then had q County Judge, but no establish
ed Board of County Commissioners, it is
plain that the act did not confer the right
npon the County Judge Of Davidson coun-
ty, to vote in person or by proxy the stock
owned by the county of Davidson.
Then the act Of Oct. %, 1869, chapter 6,
page Z, repealed the act creating the Board
Of Commissioners for Davidson county,
and abolished said Offices, and restored the
County Court of Davidson to be held by
the magistrates ofthe county with all their
d. LlCl GAolCA bOAOAC ~ AdlC. VI
said act erecting said Board Of Commits
siOnens.
Now the question submitted, so to
speak, is narrowed down to a narrow COM
pass. If the said sec. 2, of the act Of Feb.
1869, did not receive a new and different
application and force from that intended in
its passage by the Legislature, by reason of
the abolition of said Board Of Commission
ers, then / submit that there can be no
question in my mind that the Justices of the
Peace in the County Court of Davidson,
were restored to their original right under
the provisions Of said section 8, Of the act Of
1852, to appoint the proxy to represent and
vote the stock of Davidson in all elections
held by the stockholders. The said act
of October, 1869, repeating the act creating
said Board of Commissioners, and restoring
the County and Quarterly Courts of David ;
son county to all their original rights as
they existed before the passage Of said law
creating said Board Of Commissioners
think RENTED them to their original right
under said section 9 of the act of 1852, to
the proxy tO-vOte the stock owned
by Davidson county in railroad corpora
tons. In fact, 1 have great doubt whether
that right was ever at any time taken away
from the County Court Of Davidson, for I
the reasOn before stated. l therefore de- 5
eide that the justices Of Davidson county, f,
when in the County Court, and acting as
he County Court Of Davidson, have the 6
to appoint the proxy to represent and j
vote the stock owned by the county in all
elections held by the stockholders Of the
corporations. :
Imay add, as showing clearly the legis- I
.ative intent in accordance with this on-
the subscriptions Of the county
IF Davidson to the different railroads were I
made under the act Of 1852, ch. 191, sec :
ions II to 20 inclusive (page 275 of the
acts Of that SESSION.. Section 10 Of
his act provides aThat the stock so taken !
by either of said County Courts shall be- ,
.ong to the county, and the dividends which Z
nav accrue thereon shall constitute a fund :
or county purposes, and may be fIom time
time appropriated as a majority Of the
of the Peace for said county may I
County Court direct" !
By the Code 1852 it is provided that .
The county or corporation may appoint a
from time to tire, to represent the
took so subscribed in all meetings of the 3
stockholders" :
By the Code 402 it is also provided that
Every county is a corporation, and the
IN the COumey Court assembled are n
he representatives Of the county and au- 7
hOrized to act for IT," L
These provisions leave no room to doubt \
hat the Legislature intended that the coun- 5
y stock in railroads should be county pro- Y
,erty, to be controlled and, so to speak, =
egislated about by the Justices of the =
Peace in the County Court assembled as !
he representatives of the county. And, as
We have seen, there is no legislation show T
Nc a different intent, and clearly none !
,onferring the same power on the County r
Judge. JOHN c. GAUT.
The undersigned have carefully read over fl
he above opinion Of Judge John G. Gaut, L
nd have also for themselves Examined the Z
ubject Of it, and hereby express their full \
in the conclusions of the same. =
EDWIN II. EWING,
NELL S. Brown, r
W. F. COOPER, n