Court Opinion

ID: 9776905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:48:19.304635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:44.799623
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Petition for Rehearing
Mr. Justice Chattin.
The appellant, Leola Strader, has filed a dignified and earnest petition to rehear.
It is argued that we failed to construe T.C.A. Section 27-303 as amended by the Public Acts of 1965, Chapter 143, T.C.A. Section 27-304 and T.C.A. Section 50-1018 in pari materia.
We held there was an apparent conflict in the Sections and that T.C.A. Section 1-303 applied. We are of the same opinion.
If there is no conflict between former laws or statutes and a subsequent law or statute and the earlier and later laws involve the same subject-matter, they will be construed in pari materia. If there is an irreconcilable conflict, the former laws are repealed by implication. Cheatham County v. Murff, 176 Tenn. 93, 138 S.W.2d 430 (1940).
Under authority of T.C.A. Section 1-303, there is no irreconcilable conflict between the Sections under consideration.
T.C.A. Sections 27-303 and 27-304 are carried under the Code Chapter entitled “Appeals Generally.” T.C.A. Section 50-1018 is carried under the Code Chapter entitled “Workmen’s Compensation — Benefits.”
*417The Legislature was dealing specifically with the practice to he followed by the Supreme Court in hearing appeals in workmen’s compensation cases in enacting T.C.A. Section 50-1018.
In the enactment of T.C.A. Section 27-303, as amended by the 1965 Act, and T.C.A. Section 27-304, the Legislature was dealing generally with the practice to be followed by the Supreme Court in cases heard by a trial judge without the intervention of a jury.
Tennessee Code Annotated is an Act of the General Assembly of 1955. The entire Code is one statute.
A special statute or a special provision of a particular statute controls a general provision in another statute or a-general provision in the same statute. Woodroof v. City of Nashville, 183 Tenn. 483, 192 S.W.2d 1013 (1946).
It was further said in the Woodroof case:
“Where the mind of the legislature has been turned to the details of a subject and they have acted upon it, a statute treating the subject in a general manner should not be considered as intended to affect the more particular provision.”
In the case of State ex rel. v. Safley, 172 Tenn. 385, 112 S.W.2d 831 (1938), this Court quoted with approval the following rule of construction:
“Where there are two acts or provisions, one of which is special in particular, and certainly includes the matter in question, and the other general, which, if standing alone, would include the same matter and thus conflict with the special act or provision, the special must be taken as intended to constitute an ex*418ception to the general act or provision, especially when such general and special acts or provisions are contemporaneous, as the legislature is not to be presumed to have intended a conflict.” Crane v. Reeder, 22 Mich. 322.
In the case of Atlas Power Company v. Leister, 197 Tenn. 491, 274 S.W.2d 354 (1954), this Court held the specific law applicable to appeals in workmen’s compensation cases would apply rather than the general sections, T.C.A. Sections 27-303 and 27-304. See also the case of Adams v. Patterson, 201 Tenn. 655, 301 S.W. 2d 362 (1957).
That portion of T.C.A. Section 50-1018 quoted in our original opinion is specifically applicable to appeals to this Court in workmen’s compensation cases. The appeal in such cases is in the nature of a writ of error and not by simple appeal. A motion for a new trial is required.
The enactment of T.C.A. Sections 27-303 and 27-304 did not abolish motions for new trials in cases tried by a trial judge without the intervention of a jury, nor deprive trial courts of the power to grant new trials in such cases. Ragsdale v. Hill, 37 Tenn.App. 671, 269 S.W.2d 911 (1954).
The intent of these sections, T.C.A. 27-303 and 27-304, is to permit, as provided in equity cases, a simple appeal in “all cases tried in a court of record without the intervention of a jury,” and on such an appeal makes it mandatory upon the court of appeals and the Supreme Court to review all issues of fact or of law de novo upon the record of the trial court; but, unless the court finds *419the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial judge, his judgment or decree stands.
As stated in our original opinion, we are not required to reweigh the evidence in workmen’s compensation cases.
For the above reasons, the petition to rehear is denied.
Burnett, Chief Justice, and White, Dyes, and Creson, Justices, concur.