1

by a three-fourths vote of the Association, directed to be presented to the next Legislature by the Committee on Legislation as measures endorsed by the Association:

1. An Act providing that any summons issued by a magistrate shall be in duplicate and one copy left with the defendant when served.

2. An Act providing that a non-suit shall not be taken after the trial commences, as a matter of right, but shall rest in the sound discretion of the Court on good cause shown, as to whether it should be granted or not.

3. An Act to provide for the construction and maintenance of state highways in this state, and, therefore, to create a state highway department and a state highway fund.

4. An Act to provide for the payment out of the treasury of the state the actual expenses of chancellors, circuit and criminal judges and attorneys general of Tennessee, incurred in the discharge of official duties.

5. An Act to abolish the appearance term in Circuit Court practice.

6. An Act to require telegraph companies to deliver messages to the full limits of any incorporated towns or cities without extra charge.

7. An Act to make more effective the enforcement of the usury laws of the State of Tennessee.

Judge St. John:-I have a verbal report to make. I was appointed Chairman of a Committee some four years ago to present to the Legislature a form of oath to be administered to lawyers in Tennessee, which was recommended by the American Bar Association. We presented it to the Legislature four years ago, had it introduced, but the Legislature ran away and we could not get it passed. At the following meeting of the Bar Association, the Committee was asked to present it again, and I came down and presented it at the last session and about the time it was brought up the Legislature ran away again. Now, if we can ever get a Legislature that will stand hitched, I think we can get it through.

President Keeble : Without objection, I will rule that

Judge St. John will continue with his committee until he can get a legislature that will stand still long enough to get the matter through.

Mr. Maddin:----In view of the fact that the state is in need of some other legislation, I doubt the advisability of our running the legislature off another time.

President Keeble: - There is room for argument there as to whether the legislature is worse standing still or running off; that is a very serious question.

The report of the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure was presented and read by the Secretary as follows:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND REMEDIAL PROCEDURE.

Hon. John Bell Keeble, President :

Your Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure beg leave to make the following recommendations, suggestions and observations:

1. Renewed effort should be made to secure the passage of a statute abolishing the appearance term in circuit courts and to substitute therefor the practice recommended by the committee having this matter in charge at the 1912 meeting of the Association.

2. That formal or common law pleading be abolished and the petition and answer system as suggested in our report of 1913, or the statement of claim and response practice obtaining in England, be substituted. The petition or statement of claim should embody a simple statement of the facts out of which the asserted rights arose and should be sworn to. The answer or response should also be sworn to and should be specific in its reply to every averment of fact. Replications, also sworn to, should be allowed with respect to any matter of avoidance set up in the answer. It should be made the duty of the court and counsel to ascertain from these pleadings the disputed questions of fact, and evidence should be heard and the jury should be called to pass upon these questions of fact only, all other pertinent allegations being assumed as true or proven.

That there be passed an act prescribing the forms of warrants for justices of the peace to the extent of requiring a short statement of the facts. A justice who cannot write out such a statement ought to be required to respond to a quo warranto proceeding; a litigant who cannot tell when, where and how his rights were invaded should sue by next friend.

4. That there be passed an act allowing or requiring and regulating the submitting of special issues of fact to juries in common law trials, and requiring all verdicts thereunder to be in writing; and that, until the passage of such an act, the trial judges of the state be encouraged to resort to this practice to the extent now allowed by law. This will save innumerable trials and will prevent countless mistrials.

5. That the practice of moving for a directed verdict be abolished and that there be a return to that of demurring to the evidence. Under this practice the demurrent admits of record the truthfulness of the evidence adduced by his adversary, and this will obviate another trial in case the reviewing court should be of opinion that the party making the motion was not entitled to judgment. Under the peremptory instruction practice there have been many miscarriages of justice because of inability of the plaintiff to reintroduce his witnesses; and the demurrer to the evidence practice has another merit which should not be overlooked, and that is, that it will prevent a designing plaintiff who has a weak case from strengthening his timbers upon a second trial.

6. Whenever a complainant in his bill, or the defendant in his answer in a chancery proceeding so demands, it shall be the duty of the chancellor to hear the witnesses orally with respect to sharply drawn issues of fact.

7. The judge-made rule that reviewing courts will not reverse upon the facts if there by any evidence to support the verdict should be abolished, and in lieu thereof reversal and remand for a new trial should be imperative whenever the verdict is beyond dispute against the palpable and great preponderance of the evidence. If trial judges will fearlessly discharge their duty of setting aside verdicts that are manifestly

wrong the suggested change of practice would not be needed.

8. There should be but one appellate court in Tennessee. The maintenence of courts permitting the successive review of cases entails too much labor upon the part of attorneys and too much expense to litigants without commensurate advantages. The system has been tolerated in Tennessee because of inability in one court composed of a few members to hear all appeals and because the present Constitution prevented any other arrangement. Nor can very much be said in favor of a system of maintaining two courts of final jurisdiction. Confusion of practice and disharmony of view will result unless the members of one of the courts should remain green and spineless cacti.

And yet it is beyond dispute that five appellate judges cannot dispose of the number of appeals from the inferior courts of this state; and hence the necessity of having for the time being a subsidiary court. We suggest that before the next regular judicial election such steps be taken as will secure an amendment to the Constitution increasing the membership of the Supreme Court to nine, and that at that time the Act creating the Court of Civil Appeals be repealed. There should be a provision allowing this Supreme Court of nine members to sit in sections or divisions of four with the presiding justice whenever the congested condition of the docket should require it.

We are of opinion that one appellate court constituted as above suggested can satisfactorily and expeditiously do all the appellate work in Tennessee. The State will not long delay the passage of a Workman's Compensation Act administered by a commission, a consequence of which will be that quite a number of troublesome cases will be removed from the field of litigation. The following scheme for the purpose of disposing of small cases will also perceptibly reduce the labors of the appellate court: That is to say, that there shall be created in each of the four larger cities of the State a city municipal court whose jurisdiction shall include all matters up to twenty dollars, presided over by a lawyer, but at the bar of which no lawyer shall be permitted to practice, and whose judgment in these small cases shall be final. That all appeals from justices' judgments of fifty dollars or less shall be to the county judge or chairman and a jury, whose settlement of the matters in controversy shall be final; and that all appeals from the circuit and chancery courts in cases where the amount involved is one hundred and fifty dollars and above fifty dollars, shall be to a court composed of two chancellors and a circuit judge or two circuit judges and a chancellor, to whom shall be transmitted the original papers and whose disposition of the matters appealed to them shall be conclusive. These matters can with respect to detail be so worked out as to afford every opportunity for one review or rehearing of every case other than those disposed of by the municipal courts suggested; and we are convinced that after a reasonable trial no litigant whose claims are small will have any just ground of complaint. Any demagogue that thinks that these suggestions are invidious with respect to the poor, should be put in charge of a veterinary surgeon.

Overburdened judges are not desirable functionaries. The people should be careful to see that the members of their highest tribunals have sufficient time to discharge their duties properly, satisfactorily and without undue haste. Appellate judges should have time to do at least three things, namely, decide all things with approximate correctness; to convince the losing party that he is wrong (almost an insuperable task); and, thirdly, to acquire the proper perspective and appreciation of their decisions as precedents. They should likewise have time to read the literature of the law and to become familiar with the views of the publicists and juristic writers of the world. They should also have time to meditate, to do some thinking of their own (and this does indeed require time, so as to be other than mere copyists from the multitudinous and double-crossed opinions of the courts of the world. In other words, they should have some views of their own and not be or remain mere dealers in secondhand judicial clothing. Again, they should be afforded the boon of an occasional vacation and an opportunity to be with their families occasionally and save themselves from suits for desertion.

We recede from the view suggested at the 1913 meeting that the Supreme Court deal with questions of law only. Our great system of jurisprudence has been kept up as a vital force because of its ability to deal with instances and its blending of law and fact has made it a living power as the constant expres