# Kelly v. Woodlee

> Tennessee Supreme Court · November 25, 1939 · 175 Tenn. 181

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3893170

## Case

- **Full name:** Kelly v. Woodlee.
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 25, 1939
- **Citations:** 175 Tenn. 181; 133 S.W.2d 473; 1939 Tenn. LEXIS 28
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Chambliss
- **Judges:** Chambliss
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3893170

## Opinion text

On Petition to ReheaR.
Me. Justice Chambliss
delivered the opinion of the Court.
*189
A petition to re-hear in this canse calls attention to the omission of this Conrt to deal specifically in its original opinion with two propositions which it is said are “material federal questions which are essential for inclusion in a petition for
certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court in the event a finding adverse to the petitioner is made.”
The original opinion did not deal specifically with these questions because the Court was not of opinion that it was necessary to do so in order to dispose fully of the determinative issue involved, to-wit, when a vacancy first occurred in the office of District Attorney-General. The questions brought to the attention of the Court in this petition relate to the vacancy in the office of United States Senator, a matter with which this Court was not concerned.
The bill in the cause sought a declaration as to which of the parties to the proceeding was legally entitled to hold the office of District Attorney-General of the Eighteenth Circuit. The right to hold this office as between these parties turned upon when a vacancy first occurred in that office. In arriving at a decision as to that date or time, it was not necessary for this Court to go further and decide when a vacancy occurred in the office of United States Senator, or who was entitled to receive compensation from the United States between the date of the election in November, 1938, and the date when Senator Stewart was sworn into the Senate, in January, 1939. We conceive these to be questions apart from the controversy presented in this cause and properly for the consideration of Congress and the Federal Courts. The pressure on this Court incident to the decision of questions necessary for decision, precludes excursions
*190
beyond this limit, where expressions of opinion fall into the fertile field of dicta.
The petition must he denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3893170. Public record. Not legal advice.