Case Name: Howard PERRY et al., Appellants, v. William R. BANKS and Merle Johnson, Minority Members, Knox County Election Commission, Appellees
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1975-03-10
Citations: 521 S.W.2d 549
Docket Number: 
Parties: Howard PERRY et al., Appellants, v. William R. BANKS and Merle Johnson, Minority Members, Knox County Election Commission, Appellees.
Judges: COOPER and BROCK, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 521
Pages: 549–556

Head Matter:
Howard PERRY et al., Appellants, v. William R. BANKS and Merle Johnson, Minority Members, Knox County Election Commission, Appellees.
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
March 10, 1975.
Arnett, Draper & Hagood, Foster D. Ar-nett, Knoxville, Charles A. Maner, Jr., Law Director, for appellants.
William R. Banks, Merle Johnson, Knoxville, for appellees.

Opinion:
OPINION
HARBISON, Justice.
This is a suit for declaratory judgment, seeking a determination of the eligibility of two candidates to hold the office of County Judge of Knox County, Tennessee.
The basic question presented in the trial court was whether the County Judge of Knox County must be a lawyer.
The two Democratic members of the Knox County Election Commission filed this suit on July 17, 1974 against the three Republican members together with a Republican and an Independent candidate for the office of County Judge in the General Election to be held on August 1, 1974. They insisted that the County Judge of Knox County is required to be "learned in the law", and that neither the Republican nor the Independent candidate met this qualification.
Plaintiffs below sought a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the Election Commission from placing the names of the defendant candidates on the Ballot and a declaration as to their eligibility.
The two candidates, Kessel and McMillan, by counter-claim and cross-claim, sought a declaration of their eligibility to hold the office of County Judge.
The three Republican members of the Election Commission asked for affirmative relief in their answer and requested that the eligibility of the two candidates be determined.
In effect, all parties, in their respective pleadings, sought essentially the same relief.
A hearing was conducted on July 20, 1974 before Honorable W. H. Inman, Chancellor, sitting by designation because of the recusal of both Knox County Chancellors. The Chancellor ruled that the office of County Judge of Knox County must be filled by a person learned in the law and directed the Election Commis sioners to remove the names of Kessel and McMillan from the ballot.
Pursuant to a post-judgment motion the Chancellor, on July 24, 1974, modified his ruling and permitted Kessel and McMillan to remain on the ballot but enjoined the issuance of certificate of election in the event either should be the apparent winner, pending a final adjudication of this controversy.
At the ensuing General Election, held on August 1, 1974, both Kessel and Banks were defeated.
Thus it is that by the time this controversy reached this Court, the questions presented had been deprived of practical significance and were academic and abstract in character, insofar as the general election of 1974, these particular parties and this particular Election Commission are concerned.
Despite the result of the election, an appeal has been perfected to this Court by the Republican members of the Election Commission and by one of the defeated candidates, seeking a review of the judgment of the Court below.
In the opinion of the majority of the members of this Court, the issues in this case were rendered moot by the outcome of the General Election held on August 1, 1974. It accordingly results that, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the decision of the Chancellor on the issues before him, the appeal will be dismissed as moot at the cost of appellants.
COOPER and BROCK, JJ., concur.
HENRY, J., and FONES, C. J., dissent.