Bond's Jewelry Co. v. City of Mobile, 1 Div. 618
| Decision Date | 24 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 618 |
| Citation | 266 Ala. 463,97 So.2d 582 |
| Parties | BOND'S JEWELRY COMPANY, Inc. v. CITY OF MOBILE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Chris C. Delaney, Mobile, for appellant.
Vincent F. Kilborn and Fred Collins, Mobile, for appellee.
This is a declaratory judgment action to test the constitutionality of Section 766, as amended, of Article 2 of Chapter 73 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Mobile of 1947.
The ordinance in question, in substance, prohibits the sale or disposition at auction within the City of Mobile any gold, silver, plated ware, precious stones, watches, clocks, jewelry, bric-a-brac, china or glassware during the months of November and December.
The bill avers:
'Complainant avers that the Ordinance purporting to amend Section 766 of Article 2 of Chapter 73 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Mobile of 1947, is, as to your Complainant violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and is violative of Article One, Section One, Article One, Section Twenty-two and Article One, Section Thirty-five, of the Constitution of the State of Alabama of 1901, in that it is unreasonable, discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious, it deprives Complainant of property without due process of law, it denies to the Complainant equal protection of the laws, it is not a proper exercise of police power, and it is not for the benefit of the public but for the benefit of a minority group.'
The bill prays, in part, as follows:
'Complainant further prays that upon a hearing of this bill, this Honorable Court will decree that, as to your Complainant, the ordinance adopted by the Commissioners of the City of Mobile referred to in this bill, is violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and is violative of Article One, Section One, Article One, Section Twenty-two, and Article One, Section Thirty-five of the Constitution of the State of Alabama of 1901, in that it is unreasonable, discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious, it deprives Complainant of property without due process of law, it denies to the Complainant equal protection of the laws, it is not a proper exercise of police power, and is not for the benefit of the public but for the benefit of a minority group.'
Section 166 of Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, provides as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. State (In re State)
...& Co. , 342 So.2d 16 (Ala.1977) ; Busch Jewelry Co. v. City of Bessemer , 266 Ala. 492, 98 So.2d 50 (1957) ; Bond's Jewelry Co. v. City of Mobile , 266 Ala. 463, 97 So.2d 582 (1957) ; Wheeler , 264 Ala. at 267, 87 So.2d at 29.").17 Furthermore, I question the appropriateness—in terms of rip......
-
State v. State (In re State)
...& Co., 342 So. 2d 16 (Ala. 1977); Busch Jewelry Co. v. City ofBessemer, 266 Ala. 492, 98 So. 2d 50 (1957); Bond's Jewelry Co. v. City of Mobile, 266 Ala. 463, 97 So. 2d 582 (1957); Wheeler, 264 Ala. at 267, 87 So. 2d at 29.").17 Furthermore, I question the appropriateness--in terms of ripen......
-
Board of Trustees of Emp. Retirement System of City of Montgomery v. Talley, 3 Div. 456
...notice of our want of jurisdiction apparent on the record. Wheeler v. Bullington, 264 Ala. 264, 87 So.2d 27; Bond's Jewelry Co. v. City of Mobile, 266 Ala. 463, 97 So.2d 582; Busch Jewelry Co. v. City of Bessemer, 266 Ala. 492, 98 So.2d 50; Smith v. Lancaster, 267 Ala. 366, 102 So.2d 1; Col......
-
Pak-A-Sak of Ala., Inc. v. Lauten
...only to certain types of declaratory judgment proceedings. See Wheeler v. Bullington, 264 Ala. 264, 87 So.2d 27; Bond's Jewelry Co. v. City of Mobile, 266 Ala. 463, 97 So.2d 582; Busch Jewelry Co. v. City of Bessemer, 266 Ala. 492, 98 So.2d Although served with a copy of the complaint, the ......