Court Opinion

ID: 9675606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:59:03.04747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:35.735843
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
Complainants have filed a petition to rehear. They do not ask the Court to reverse its decision. They insist it should ‘ ‘ clarify its opinion by eliminating any doubt that the office of constable may be abolished by the Legislature under the consolidation powers granted by Article 11, section 9 of the Constitution.”
The Legislature, however, has not undertaken to do that. As pointed out in our opinion, the Legislature, by the Consolidation Act of 1957 (T.C.A. sec. 6-3701 et seq.), did not abolish the office of constable or any other constitutional office; nor did it authorize the Charter Commission to do so.
Since the Legislature has not undertaken to do that, it would not be proper for us to decide whether they could, under this constitutional amendment (Art. 11, sec. 9), should they undertake to do so.
The Declaratory Judgments Act gives courts no power to determine future rights or controversies in *667anticipation of events that Rave not occurred, or to give advisory, opinions upon a theoretical or hypothetical state of facts. Ball v. Cooler et al., 185 Tenn. 631, 634, 207 S.W.2d 340, 342; Coleman v. Henry, 184 Tenn. 550, 554, 201 S.W.2d 686; Jared et al. v. Fitzgerald et al., 183 Tenn. 682, 688, 689, 195 S.W.2d 1, 4; Newsum v. Interstate Realty Co., 152 Tenn. 302, 278 S.W. 56; West v. Carr, 212 Tenn. 376, 370 S.W.2d 469, 475.
It is the duty of this Court to pass on a constitutional question only when it is absolutely necessary for the determination of the case and of the rights of the parties to the litigation. West v. Carr, supra, and cases there cited.
For these reasons, the petition to rehear is denied at petitioners’ cost.