Beasley v. McCorkle
| Decision Date | 08 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 945. |
| Citation | 184 So. 904,237 Ala. 4 |
| Parties | BEASLEY, MAYOR, v. MCCORKLE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.
Petition of R. L. McCorkle for mandamus to Robert Beasley, as Mayor of the City of Tuscumbia. From a judgment granting the writ respondent appeals.
Affirmed.
W. L Chenault, of Russellville, for appellant.
W. F McDonnell, of Sheffield, and Ed Almon Williams, of Tuscumbia for appellee.
This is a proceeding instituted in the Circuit Court of Colbert County by R. L. McCorkle, appellee here, to require the appellant, Mayor of the City of Tuscumbia, Alabama, to approve a warrant drawn in petitioner's favor by the clerk of said city, for salary due him as chief of police for a specified number of days in June, 1938.
It is averred in the petition that the City Council on June 20th, 1938, by ordinance duly and legally passed and adopted, created the office of Chief of Police for said City of Tuscumbia, and that petitioner was duly appointed to the office by said city council. That the salary of petitioner was duly fixed by said ordinance at the sum of $1,839.36, payable in semi-monthly installments, and the clerk was expressly authorized to issue warrants on the first and fifteenth days of each month for the payment of this salary. All warrants drawn by the clerk are required to be approved by the mayor before the same can be paid by the treasurer.
The petition further avers and shows that, subsequent to the passage, adoption, and publication of said ordinance, and pursuant to its provisions, the petitioner duly qualified as chief of police as aforesaid on June 25th, 1938. That on the day of his qualification as such official he entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office, and since that date has fully performed all of the duties required by the ordinance.
That on July 1st, 1938, in accordance with the terms of said ordinance, the city clerk issued a warrant on the city treasurer of Tuscumbia, payable to petitioner, for his June, 1938, salary, as such chief of police, and this warrant was thereupon duly presented to the mayor, the said Robert Beasley, for his approval as required by law, and that the said respondent mayor refused, and still refuses, to approve the same. That there "were then and there are now ample funds in the treasury of said city, subject and liable to the payment of said warrant."
The respondent-mayor first moved to dismiss the petition, and when his motion was overruled, he demurred to the same, and when this demurrer was overruled, he filed four pleas. The first plea was a general denial of the allegations of the petition. In pleas two and three the respondent undertook to set up the invalidity of the appointment of petitioner to the office of chief of police. Plea four undertook to set up matters occurring prior to the passage of the ordinance in question, and prior to the appointment of petitioner. The court sustained demurrers to all pleas of the respondent except the plea of the general issue.
The evidence offered on the trial of the cause supports fully all the material allegations of the petition. It shows conclusively that the ordinance creating the office of Chief of Police for the City of Tuscumbia, and the appointment of the petitioner to said office was duly and legally adopted by the city council, and was duly authenticated by the clerk of the city, and that immediately upon its adoption the ordinance was duly published, as the law directs, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Tuscumbia. No irregularity whatever appears in the proceedings leading up to, and culminating in, the passage and adoption of the ordinance. All requirements of Sections 1992, 1993 and 1999 of the Code were fully observed.
It is true that the ordinance was not approved by the mayor, or authenticated by his signature, but this was wholly unnecessary. Davis v. City of Tuscumbia et al., Ala.Sup., 183 So. 657.
It further appears that since the appointment of petitioner on June 25, 1938, he has been in possession of the office of, and has discharged the duties encumbent upon him as, Chief of Police of the City of Tuscumbia. It further appears without dispute that the city clerk duly issued his warrant to the petitioner for his June salary, and presented it to the respondent-mayor for his approval, which he refused to give.
It is not disputed that the City of Tuscumbia is a municipality of less than 6,000 inhabitants, and operates under the General Municipal Code of Alabama, and not under any special charter.
Section 1908 of the Code provides, inter alia:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Town of Lexington
...of police and chief of the fire department and shall specifically prescribe their duties.”) (emphasis supplied); see also Beasley v. McCorkle, 184 So. 904 (Ala.1938).47 The authorities cited by the Town of Anderson do not, however, resolve the issue of whether Police Chief Mark Bowers's law......
-
Ex parte Register
...which there is a de facto incumbent. Ex parte Harris, 52 Ala. 87, 89; Goodwyn v. Sherer, 145 Ala. 501, 504, 40 So. 279; Beasley v. McCorkle, 237 Ala. 4(5), 184 So. 904. A de facto officer is one who exercises the duties of a de jure office under color of appointment or election, and his off......
-
Jefferson County v. O'Gara
...opinion in the case at bar, called attention to the rule declared in the case of Sessions v. Boykin, 78 Ala. 328, and in Beasley, Mayor, v. McCorkle, supra, the effect that to entitle a party to mandamus there must concur a specific legal right to the relief sought, and the absence of any o......
-
Melton v. Bowie
...turns on the interpretation of what the term "provide for" in § 11-43-5 means, and this Court touched on that issue in Beasley v. McCorkle, 237 Ala. 4, 184 So. 904 (1938).Like this case, Beasley essentially involved a power struggle between a mayor and a city council. Tuscumbia's city counc......