State v. Southern Express Co.
Citation | 75 So. 343,200 Ala. 31 |
Decision Date | 19 April 1917 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 244 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. BLACK v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; H.A. Sharpe, Judge.
Injunction by the State, on relation of Hugo L. Black, Solicitor against the Southern Express Company and others. From decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.
The following is the Reed Amendment referred to in the opinion:
Hugo L Black, of Birmingham, pro se.
Robert C. Alston, of Atlanta, Ga., and Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, of Birmingham, for appellee.
This is a bill for injunction to prevent certain acts or conduct by an interstate common carrier, an express company, relating to or concerning the subject of the prohibition or regulation of the use or consumption of intoxicating liquors. The party complainant is the state of Alabama, the relator being the solicitor of Jefferson county. The respondents are the Southern Express Company, a corporation, and two of its agents engaged in its service at Birmingham, Jefferson county, Ala. If the bill's averments are sufficient to justify or to require the injunctive relief sought thereby, the jurisdiction and power of the court of equity to grant and effect that relief is created and established by section 11 of the act approved September 25, 1915. Gen.Acts, 1915, p. 557. That section reads:
The submission for the issuance of the writ was on the original bill and sworn answer. Code, § 4529. The injunction prayed was denied, and the state appeals.
The charges asserted in the bill and the acts or conduct sought to be controlled by the injunction prayed may be thus summarily stated:
The defenses set forth in the sworn answer may be thus summarily stated:
All of the shipments referred to in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Antwerp v. State
...Leonard v. State, 38 Ala.App. 138, 79 So.2d 803 (1905); Haywood v. State, 280 Ala. 171, 190 So.2d 728 (1966); State v. Southern Express Co., 200 Ala. 31, 75 So. 343 (1917); Fiorella v. City of Birmingham, 35 Ala.App. 384, 48 So.2d 761 (1950); McKinney v. State, 50 Ala.App. 271, 278 So.2d 71......
-
State v. Cox
... ... 61, Commonwealth v. Mixer, 207 Mass. 141, ... 93 N.E. 249, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 467, 20 Ann. Cas. 1152, ... Wells Fargo & Co. Express v. State, 79 Ark. 349, 96 ... S.W. 189, People v. Roby, 52 Mich. 577, 18 N.W. 365, ... 50 Am. Rep. 270, Seattle v. Brookins, 98 ... violating the statute." ... State ex rel. v. Southern Express Co. (Ala.) 75 So ... 343, involved a bill for an injunction to prevent certain ... acts or conduct by the company as an ... ...
-
State v. Spurlock
...the influence of liquor or drugs); Smith, supra (Giving false weights and measures in the sale of gasoline); State v. Southern Express Co., 200 Ala. 31, 75 So. 343 (1917) (Transporting prohibited liquor); McKinney v. State, 50 Ala.App. 271, 278 So.2d 719, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 789, 278 So.......
-
Hubbard v. State (Ex parte Hubbard)
...criminalization of otherwise noncriminal conduct is the ordinary function of much criminal statutory law. Cf. State v. Southern Express Co., 200 Ala. 31, 37, 75 So. 343, 349 (1917) ("[T]he state [has power] to create and define as a crime the mere doing of an act which but for the statute w......