Bear Bros., Inc. v. Trammell
| Citation | 183 So.2d 790,279 Ala. 194 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 179 |
| Parties | BEAR BROTHERS, INC., et al., v. Seymore TRAMMELL, as Director, et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
M. R. Nachman, Jr., and Steiner, Crum & Baker, Montgomery, for appellants.
Goodwyn & Smith, Montgomery, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, in Equity, discharging a temporary injunction.
A bill seeking injunctive relief, temporary and permanent, was filed by Bear Brothers, Inc., a corporation, and other duly licensed general contractors residing in this state against Seymore Trammell, as Director of Finance of the State of Alabama; the Alabama Building Commission and its members; Hugh D. Adams as Director of the Alabama Building Commission; and members of an architectural firm which had drawn up plans and specifications for material and labor required for the construction of new buildings and for an addition to an existing building at the Alabama Industrial School for Negro Children at Mount Meigs.
The purpose of the bill filed by conplainants is to have the court restrain the respondents from taking any action in connection with the opening of bids and the awarding, letting and execution of a certain proposed public works contract.
The complainants brought this action as interested citizens under the provisions of § 3 of Act 868, approved September 8, 1961, Acts of Alabama 1961, p. 1361, which section reads:
'The attorney general or any interested citizen may maintain an action to enjoin the letting or execution of any public works contract in violation of or contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid statutes [Code of Alabama 1940, Title 50, as heretofore or hereafter amended or supplemented, or of Act No. 492, Regular Session 1947, General Acts 1947, p. 338, as heretofore or hereafter amended or supplemented] and may enjoin payment of any public funds under any such contract.'
The right of complainants to maintain such an action against the proper parties is not here questioned.
Upon presentation of the bill to a judge of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, in Equity, the issuance of a temporary injunction was ordered upon complainants entering into a good and sufficient bond in the sum of $2,000. The bond was executed and thereupon a temporary injunction was issued.
The respondents filed a motion to containing ten grounds. We have said that such is permissible, although it is the better practice to file two separate motions to save the court from having to determine which of the grounds go to the discharge of the injunction and which seek its dissolution. Pennington v. Birmingham Baseball Club, Inc., 277 Ala. 336, 170 So.2d 410.
The trial court on February 17, 1965, rendered a decree discharging the injunction. The court held that ground 4 of the motion to was well taken. That ground reads: 'The Alabama Industrial School for Negro Children and its individual Board of Trustees are necessary and indispensable parties to this action.' No other ground of the motion to was treated in the decree of February 17, 1965, and that decree contains the following language: 'CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED and the Court expressly reserves ruling on the equity on [sic] the Bill until all necessary parties to this action are properly before the Court.'
The complainants appealed to this court on February 19, 1965. The temporary injunction was reinstated pending the appeal. The cause was submitted to this court on brief and argument on December 13, 1965.
Appellants, complainants below, earnestly insist that we pass on the equity of the bill, although the trial court expressly refrained from doing so. Appellees take a contrary position. We agree with appellees and will consider on this appeal only the question as to whether the trial court erred in discharging the injunction on the ground that the Alabama Industrial School for Negro Children and the individuals composing its Board of Trustees are necessary and indispensable parties to this action.
For the purpose of this appeal, but for that purpose only, we will consider that the absence of necessary parties complainant is a proper ground for the discharge of a temporary injunction rather than for its dissolution. The trial court was apparently of that opinion and neither party to this appeal contends otherwise.
Paragraph 2 of the stating part of the bill reads:
'Respondents have heretofore issued an invitation to bid and have caused drawings and specifications to be prepared for materials and labor required for constructing a boy's dormitory, a classroom building and gymnasium, and an addition to girl's dormitory for the Alabama Industrial School, Mt. Meigs, Alabama. The Alabama Building Commission has included in such invitation and specification, * * * under the caption
Exhibit 1 to the bill contains the following provisions under the heading 'WAGE RATES':
'LABOR STANDARDS
'1. (a) The schedule contained in the Wage Determination decision of the State of Alabama Department of Labor which is incorporated at the end of this section of the specification furnishes the minimum hourly rates of wages required to be paid to the various laborers and mechanics employed directly upon the site of the work embraced by this specification, these rates having been determined by the State of Alabama Department of Labor to be the prevailing local wage rates for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the contract work.
'(b) No classifications of laborers or mechanics may be employed except those designated in the schedule above mentioned.'
The bill alleges that the attempt by respondents to require the bidders upon 'this public works contract and project' adhere to a specified rate schedule is without legislative authority and violative of certain statutory and constitutional provisions.
Aside from the prayer for process the bill prays:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Simmons' Estate
... ... g., Public Service Coordinated Transport v. Marlo Trucking Co., Inc., 108 N.J.Super. 232, 236, 260 A.2d 855 (App.Div.1970) (when insurance ... ...
-
Thagard v. Brock
...the right of such persons to do so. We also take judicial knowledge of the public laws or statutes of this state. Bear Brothers, Inc. v. Trammell, 279 Ala. 194, 183 So.2d 790. In brief on application for rehearing in Gibbs v. Cochran, supra, respondents 'Rule 23 as adopted by the Alabama St......
-
Wallace v. Board of Ed. of Montgomery County
...of the specifications of the contract. . . ..' The question for decision is the same question which the parties in Bear Brothers, Inc. v. Trammell, 279 Ala. 194, 183 So.2d 790, undertook to present in that case, which, however, was decided on another Respondents argue that the instant suit ......
-
Young v. Michael Dwain Mfg., Inc.
...the existence and effect of § 1-1-4 as a public law or statute of this state, as is this court on appeal. Bear Brothers, Inc. v. Trammell, 279 Ala. 194, 183 So.2d 790 (1966); Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Orr, 253 Ala. 528, 45 So.2d 766 We note, however, that it appears to this court that the ......