# Morton v. Johnson City

> Tennessee Supreme Court · February 5, 1960 · 206 Tenn. 411

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778824

## Case

- **Full name:** J. D. Morton Et Al. v. Johnson City, Tennessee, Et Al.
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 5, 1960
- **Citations:** 206 Tenn. 411; 10 McCanless 411; 333 S.W.2d 924; 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 378
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Burnett
- **Cited by:** 27 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/9778824

## Opinion text

On Petition to Rehear
We have before us a forceful, respectful and earnest petition to rehear. To all intents and purposes this petition is a reargument of what was made before this Court and in the original briefs herein. Obviously though, the *432 argument now made is directed to the original opinion herein and not to outside authorities, and is, therefore, made a little more forcefully and directly.
The argument is made in this petition that we by the opinion in this case have overruled Witt v. McCanless, 200 Tenn. 360 , 292 S.W.2d 392 . This argument is fallacious. As a matter of fact instead of overruling the opinion we expressly approved it in our original opinion and do so again.
The argument is also made herein that we are disagreeing in this ease with the opinion of this Court as reported in State ex rel. Southerland v. Town of Greeneville, 201 Tenn. 133 , 297 S.W.2d 68 . This opinion, that is in the present case, in no way is in disagreement with the Town of G-reeneville case. In the Town of Greeneville case the question presented was on demurrer to the declaration, and it in no way conflicts with what we have held herein.
We in working up this petition to rehear have again reviewed our notes that we made in working the original case. We find among these notes a citation to the case of State ex rel. Attorney General v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 102 Fla. 1019 , 136 So. 889 . We have again read this case. The case holds in accordance with those followed in our original opinion that within constitutional limits, the territory which the legislative body may annex or authorize to be annexed is largely a matter of legislative discretion. That case also held that when the power is in the Legislature to establish and abolish municipalities necessarily it has the power to establish and change the limits of territorial jurisdiction. Section 8 of Article 11 of our Constitution vests the Legislature with very *433 broad powers with, regard to municipalities which clearly cover what was done herein. The same reasoning applies here and was applied, or attempted to be applied, in onr original opinion. We attempted to cite authority and state what the Legislature might do under facts and circumstances similar to those herein, and held that as long as the Legislature could do so that the city under authority from the Legislature might do the same thing the Legislature could. We thing that this is a sound, reasonable way to look at questions as presented herein.
It is argued here, too, that by our original opinion we have deprived the parties of the right of judicial review. This is a misconception of what we held in the opinion. We feel that after a careful reading of the opinion the parties will see that they do have a right of judicial review as provided by the statute, and there are no constitutional rights taken away from the parties under our form of government.
After very careful study of this petition we are satisfied with the original opinion herein and feel that it is the proper conclusion to reach on questions here presented. The petition to rehear is accordingly denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778824. Public record. Not legal advice.