legality claim in Tennessee

1965It is the remedy or proceeding by which the sovereign or state determines the legality of a claim which a party asserts the use or exercise of an office or franchise and ousts the holder from its enjoyment, if the claim is not well founded, or if the right to enjoy the privilege has been forfeited or lost.’ 44 Am.Jur., p. 88, Sec. 2.” And then we went on to say: “The Supreme Court of the United States speaking through Mr. Justice Lamar in Newman v. U.S., 238 U.S. 537 , 35 S.Ct. 881, 883 , 59 L.Ed. 1464 , has well stated the reason of why actions of the kind here should and must be brought by q

1965It is the remedy or proceeding by which the sovereign or state determines the legality of a claim which a party asserts the use or exercise of an office or franchise and ousts the holder from its enjoyment, if the claim is not well founded, or if the right to enjoy the privilege has been forfeited or lost.’ 44 Am.Jur., p. 88, Sec. 2.” And then we went on to say: “The Supreme Court of the United States speaking through Mr. Justice Lamar in Newman v. U.S., 238 U.S. 537 , 35 S.Ct. 881, 883 , 59 L.Ed. 1464 , has well stated the reason of why actions of the kind here should and must be brought by q

2010Likewise, we do not find to be relevant the holding in Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), for in that case, the issue was the legality of a rule which provided that the defendant could not present evidence of third party guilt if the State had produced forensic evidence which, if believed, strongly supported the guilt of the defendant.

2005Miller, 304 S.W.2d at 658 . 23 “Article VII, section 1, of the [Te nnesse e] Co nstitution d eclares that county officers . . . shall be re mov able from office for malfeasance or neglect of duty and clothes the legislature with power to prescribe the mode of procedure through which removal may be affected.” State ex rel.

1946No writ of injunction, supersedeas, prohibition, or other process can lawfully issue for the prevention of the collection of revenue claimed to be due the state.” Also, in East Tennessee Brewing Co. v. Currier, 126 Tenn. 535 , 150 S. W. 541 , a case in which the Brewing Company was contesting the legality of a claim for the privilege tax upon liquor dealers, the Court said ( 126 Tenn. at page 547 , 150 S. W. at page 544): “. . .

1946No writ of injunction, supersedeas, prohibition, or other process can lawfully issue for the prevention of the collection of revenue claimed to be due the state.” Also, in East Tennessee Brewing Co. v. Currier, 126 Tenn. 535 , 150 S. W. 541 , a case in which the Brewing Company was contesting the legality of a claim for the privilege tax upon liquor dealers, the Court said ( 126 Tenn. at page 547 , 150 S. W. at page 544): “. . .

1945In the case of liquor regulation, the regulation of pool halls and similar establishments, the courts have sometimes indicated that, as these businesses operated only through public sufferance, they could not be heard to complain of inadequate standards for the delegation of power regulating their activity. ’ ’ The question now before us was given full consideration by the Supreme Court of the United States in Duckworth v. State of Arkansas, supra, and also in Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 321 U. S. 131 , 64 S. Ct. 464 , 88 L.

1945In the case of liquor regulation, the regulation of pool halls and similar establishments, the courts have sometimes indicated that, as these businesses operated only through public sufferance, they could not be heard to complain of inadequate standards for the delegation of power regulating their activity. ’ ’ The question now before us was given full consideration by the Supreme Court of the United States in Duckworth v. State of Arkansas, supra, and also in Carter v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 321 U. S. 131 , 64 S. Ct. 464 , 88 L.

1907We shall have occasion to refer to this more particularly infra. We do not think that the text of Cyc., supra, is sustained by the authorities cited in the foot note, in which text it is said: “Some States which deny the legality of the rule permit the paper to be sent to the drawee when .there is no other bank in the place known by the owner, and collection by a different method Avould be costly and inconvenient.” The cases cited on this subject are Wilson v. Carlinville National Bank, 187 Ill., 222 , 58 N. E., 250 , 52 L.

1900Even if we concede, therefore, that. the classi-. fication dactrine applies to municipal corporations, which admits of grave doubt (Ballentine v. Pulaski, 15 Lea, 633 ; Williams v. Nashville, 89 Tenn., 487 ; Reelfoot Lake v. Dawson, 97 Tenn., 153 ; Burnett v. Maloney, 97 Tenn., 697 ), the classification made in this case is not arbitrary and capricious but reasonable and natural, and básed upon the idea that sales of intoxicating liquors will be allowed only when adequate police power can be afforded to protect the peace and good order of the locality.

1900Even if we concede, therefore, that. the classi-. fication dactrine applies to municipal corporations, which admits of grave doubt (Ballentine v. Pulaski, 15 Lea, 633 ; Williams v. Nashville, 89 Tenn., 487 ; Reelfoot Lake v. Dawson, 97 Tenn., 153 ; Burnett v. Maloney, 97 Tenn., 697 ), the classification made in this case is not arbitrary and capricious but reasonable and natural, and básed upon the idea that sales of intoxicating liquors will be allowed only when adequate police power can be afforded to protect the peace and good order of the locality.