Court Opinion

ID: 9825276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:27:31.415932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:38.711698
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
THOMAS, SOMERVILLE, and MILLER, JJ., concur in the opinion and the result.
 The Chief Justice, for the majority, concurs in the result as follows:
“ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, GARDNER, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur in the result. While not dissenting as to what is said in the opinion as to the act being repugnant to section 45 of the Constitution, they prefer to not commit themselves to this point, as they feel more assured as to the soundness of the holding on the other point; that is, the respondent being a judge under section 168 of the Constitution in lieu ‘ of justices of the peace, the present act extending his jurisdiction to civil cases involving $500 violates said section of the Constitution and cannot be put on him as such judge ex officio, or otherwise. On the other hand, if these new duties, which carry compensation, are referable to the respondent in another capacity and not as judge of the’inferior court, then he would be acting in a dual capacity and in effect holding two offices of profit at tjie same time in violation of section 280 of the Constitution. True, section 280 excepts certain officers, including justices of the peace, but the judge provided under section 168 is not excepted. While the office is in lieu of justices of the peace it is in lieu of several, and carries with it a salary.”
The application for rehearing 'is overruled.