Bay Shell Road Co. v. O'Donnell
| Decision Date | 23 May 1889 |
| Citation | 6 So. 119,87 Ala. 376 |
| Parties | BAY SHELL ROAD CO. v. O'DONNELL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Mobile; O. J. SEMMES, Judge.
The facts of this case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. The grounds of demurrer, as interposed by the plaintiff to the defendant's plea, were that the statute set up in defense of the action was unconstitutional, in that it was a special law for the benefit of a corporation in a case which could have been accomplished by a general law that it was a special law for the benefit of a corporation when the relief sought could have been granted by the court because the operation of the acts suspends the operation of the general laws of the state as to estray; because the said act purports to grant a privilege on a corporation; and, in general, because it is violative of the constitution of the state.
Overall & Bestor, for appellant.
By section 2 of "An act for the protection of life and property upon the Bay shell road," approved February 12, 1885, it is provided "that it shall be unlawful for any person to allow any loose animal belonging to them to run at large upon said Bay shell road, and any animal found running at large on said road may be by any officer or employé of said Bay Shell Road Company taken up and estrayed in the manner as is provided by article 1, c. 7, tit. 13, pt. 1, Code Ala." Acts 1884-85, pp. 392, 393. To an action of trespass brought against the Bay Shell Road Company by John O'Donnell for impounding cattle belonging to him, and found running at large on the road, the company, in addition to the general issue, pleaded this statute. The special plea was demurred to on the ground of the alleged unconstitutionality of the act, the demurrers were sustained, and a trial was had on the general issue, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
It may admit of doubt whether the statute is unconstitutional for either of the reasons assigned in the demurrers, but if the act is bad on any ground, or as being violative of any provision of the constitution, the action of the court, in sustaining the demurrers interposed on the grounds stated, would bear a striking analogy to the ascription of a wrong reason for a correct decision, in which case the decision would be upheld; and in any aspect, if error at all, would be without injury to the defendant company, as it could never justify under the void law.
That the provision of this statute under which justification was attempted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Armstrong.
...v. Pony Gold Min. Co., 24 Mont. 470, 62 P. 783, or State v. Centennial Brewing Co., 55 Mont. 500, 179 P. 296. In Bay Shell Road Co. v. O'Donnell, 87 Ala. 376, 6 So. 119, the act under consideration “for the protection of life and property upon the Bay shell road,” provided: “That it shall b......
-
State v. Dillard
...became a law. If the trial court had overruled the demurrer, this court could not have pronounced prejudicial error of it. Bay Shell-Road v. O'Donnell, supra. The under or in consequence of which appellees can alone assert a right to their offices being void, and the fact of invalidity bein......
-
Leonard v. Lyons
... ... Stewart v ... Com'rs of Hale Co., 82 Ala. 209, ... [87 So. 102.] Bay Shell Road Co. v. O'Donnell, 87 ... Ala. 376, 6 So. 119; State v. Lamar, 178 Ala. 77, 59 ... So. 473; ... ...
-
City of Pond Creek v. Haskell
...was insufficient." ¶47 To the same effect, in a later case, is the holding of the same court in the case of Bay Shell Road Company v. O'Donnell, 87 Ala. 376, 6 So. 119, wherein there was under consideration an act of the Legislature the material provisions of which will be observed in the f......