Carter v. City of Gadsden
Decision Date | 18 August 1955 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 234 |
Citation | 264 Ala. 544,88 So.2d 689 |
Parties | Homer CARTER v. CITY OF GADSDEN et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Roy D. McCord and Rowan S. Bone, Gadsden, for appellant.
Hawkins & Rhea, Gadsden, for appellees.
This suit was brought in the circuit court of Etowah County by Homer Carter against the City of Gadsden, a municipal corporation; Roy Wallace, individually and as Mayor of the City of Gadsden; Carl Temple, individually and as Electrical Inspector of the City of Gadsden; and E. L. Mount, individually, and as City Fire Marshal of the City of Gadsden.
Demurrer was sustained to the original complaint which consisted only of Count One. The complaint was amended by adding Counts A, A-1 and B-1, but demurrer was sustained to the complaint as thus amended. Thereafter the complaint was amended by adding Count C and by withdrawing all other allegations of the complaint as amended.
Count C reads as follows:
Demurrers interposed to Count C by the City of Gadsden, Roy Wallace, Carl Temple and E. L. Mount in their official capacities were sustained. Demurrers of Wallace, Temple and Mount interposed to that count in their individual capacities were overruled. Thereafter there was an agreement to plead in short by consent.
The cause came on for trial before the court and a jury. The plaintiff rested after presenting his own testimony and that of an official of the Alabama Power Company. Subsequent events are disclosed by the following judgment entry:
'Ruling On Motion To Exclude Evidence, And Non Suit.
'On this the 25th day of November, 1953, come the parties by attorneys, and the issues being joined and the plaintiff having presented his evidence and rested in this cause, thereupon the following motion was made by each defendant separately and severally, to-wit: 'Defendants, separately and severally, move to exclude the evidence in this case and that the defendants, separately and severally, be discharged, and that judgment be entered in their favor, separately and severally.' And after due consideration of the said motion, It is ordered and adjudged by the Court that said motion be and the same is hereby sustained as to the defendants Roy L. Wallace and E. L. Mount, and further that said motion be and the same is hereby overruled as to the defendant, Carl Temple. And to all of these rulings of the Court, the plaintiff duly excepts.
From that judgment the plaintiff below has appealed to this court. It is a final judgment which 'put the case out of court.' Wood v. Coman, 56 Ala. 283, cited approvingly in Martin v. Alabama Power Co., 208 Ala, 212, 94 So. 76; Thomas v. White, 244 Ala. 128, 12 So.2d 567; Gentry v. Swann Chemical Co., 234 Ala. 313, 174 So. 530.
We will consider only those assignments of error which challenge the trial court's action in excluding the plaintiff's evidence on motions of the defendants Wallace and Mount. They are the only assignments of error argued in brief of counsel for appellant and it is well settled that assignments of error not argued in brief are treated as waived. Eddleman v. Cade, 261 Ala. 154, 73 So.2d 362. Moreover, on this appeal we are limited to a consideration of only the rulings of the court which culminated in and superinduced the taking of the nonsuit. Mullins v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 239 Ala. 608, 195 So. 866; Cauble v. Boy Scouts of America, 250 Ala. 152, 33 So.2d 461.
The practice of entertaining a motion by the defendant, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, to exclude the evidence has been condemned and criticized. Dorough v. Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co., 221 Ala. 305, 123 So. 602; Johnson v. Shook & Fletcher Supply, 245 Ala. 123, 16 So.2d 406, yet the trial court will not be put in error for doing so where the plaintiff's evidence does not make out a prima facie case. See Dorough v. Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co., supra, overruling in this respect Stewart Bros. v. Ransom, 200 Ala. 304, 76 So. 70; Mount Vernon-Woodberry Mills v. Little, 222 Ala. 605, 133 So. 710; W. E. Herron Motor Co. v. Maynor, 232 Ala. 319, 167 So. 793; Sharpe v. Western Ry. of Alabama, 234 Ala. 507, 175 So. 542; Roebuck v. Hooie, 250 Ala. 363, 34 So.2d 460; Hamilton v. Browning, 257 Ala. 72, 57 So.2d 530; Riley v. Riley, 257 Ala. 636, 60 So.2d 432; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. French, 261 Ala. 306, 74 So.2d 266.
On August 19, 1952, the Alabama Power Company disconnected the electricity running into plaintiff's dry cleaning plant at 817 East Broad Street, Gadsden. Plaintiff owned the building in which he operated the dry cleaning plant. He constructed the building in 1946 or 1947 and had continuously operated a dry cleaning establishment in part of the building. The Alabama Power Company acted in accordance with a written order signed by the defendants Temple and Mount, a copy of which order went to Mayor Wallace. Temple signed the order 'as Electrical Inspector of the City of Gadsden, Alabama' and Mount signed as 'City Fire Marshall, City of Gadsden, Alabama.' The reason given to the Alabama Power Company for the order was 'because the electrical installations or wiring on said premises are in violation of the provisions and requirements of the Official Building Code of the City of Gadsden, Alabama.'
Section 103.1, Chapter 1 of the Building Code of the City of Gadsden provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hardy v. Town of Hayneville, Civ.A. 99-A-86-N.
...of his or her subordinates." Newton v. Town of Columbia, 695 So.2d 1213, 1218 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (citing Carter v. City of Gadsden, 264 Ala. 544, 88 So.2d 689, 695 (1955)). The only allegations in the Complaint mentioning Joe Eddie Morgan are that Mr. Morgan was ultimately responsible for h......
-
Broughton v. Brewer, Civ. A. No. 5266-68-T
...So.2d 535, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 885, 76 S.Ct. 139, 100 L.Ed. 780 (Birmingham ordinances judicially noticed) with Carter v. City of Gadsden, 1956, 264 Ala. 544, 88 So.2d 689 (Gadsden ordinances not judicially noticed). See Herrmann v. Robinson, Ala.App.1966, 192 So.2d 251 (Court of Appeals......
-
Breland v. Ford
... ... v. Kulesus, 585 So.2d 1284, 1290 (Ala.1991) (quoting Housing Authority of the City of Prichard v. Malloy, 341 So.2d 708, 709 (Ala.1977)) (emphasis added). Because Breland's motion ... ...
-
Almon v. Commission of Ed. of Cullman County
...v. Dorsey Trailers, 256 Ala. 253, 54 So.2d 499; Poole v. William Penn Fire Ins. Co., 264 Ala. 62, 84 So.2d 333; Carter v. City of Gadsden, 264 Ala. 544, 88 So.2d 689; Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Maddox, Ala.App., 82 So.2d 277, certiorari denied, 263 Ala. 698, 82 So.2d 280. We have said that th......