Court Opinion

ID: 9868565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:41:32.639304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.574064
License: Public Domain

Cook and McKinney, JJ.,
dissent from the foregoing opinion upon the authority of Arthur v. State, 148 Tenn. 434, 256 S. W, 437; Daniel v. Larsen, 157 Tenn. 690, 12 S. W. (2d) 386; Clay v. Buchanan, 162 Tenn. 204, 210, 36 S. W. (2d) 91, and Spring Hill Cemetery v. Lindsey, 162 Tenn. 420, 37 S. W. (2d) 111, in which cases the Court declined to apply the elision doctrine, notwithstanding the acts under consideration contained declarations that if any portion be declared invalid it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. They are of the opinion that the legislature would not have passed the Act with. Section 2 omitted.