City of Albany v. Spragins
Decision Date | 18 March 1926 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 816 |
Citation | 214 Ala. 449,108 So. 32 |
Parties | CITY OF ALBANY v. SPRAGINS et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Extended Opinion, April 22, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; O. Kyle, Judge.
Bill in equity by R.E. Spragins and others against the City of Albany. From a decree for complainants, respondent appeals. Reversed and rendered.
G.O Chenault, of Albany, for appellant.
A.J Harris, of Decatur, for appellees.
The bill in this case was filed by appellees, joint owners of 28 lots in the city of Albany, seeking injunctive relief against the city from further proceedings in assessment against said lots on account of street-paving improvements. The application for temporary injunction was heard upon bill answer, and affidavits offered, resulting in an order granting the injunction, from which the city prosecutes this appeal. The bill was filed September 26, 1925, after notice by publication had been given that the preliminary assessment roll was complete and on file in the office of the city clerk, and October 18, 1925, set as the date of hearing any objections or defenses.
Our statutory system affords ample opportunity for the interposition of objections or defenses by the property owner in such character of proceedings, including appeals from adverse rulings to the higher judicial tribunals. Article 33, c. 43, Code of 1923.
It is conceded by counsel for complainants that the matters of irregularity or illegality were such as were proper to be presented and litigated in the manner provided by the statute. Garner v. City of Anniston, 59 So. 654, 178 Ala. 430; City of Birmingham v. Wills, 59 So. 173, 178 Ala. 198, Ann.Cas.1915B, 746; Day v. City of Montgomery, 93 So. 609, 207 Ala. 644.
If such a proceeding is void upon its face, common-law certiorari may be awarded to quash the same. N.C. & St. L. Ry. v. Town of Boaz (Ala.Sup.) 106 So. 192.
The equity of the bill rests, as insisted by complainants' counsel, and so held by the court below, upon the doctrine of the avoidance of a multiplicity of suits, and this upon the theory that, as complainants own 28 lots, they will be compelled to defend as to each separately, though the facts and the law are the same as to each, with appeals separately taken in the event of adverse rulings; there being no provision for a consolidation of the causes. The equity here sought to be invoked belongs to the second class of the doctrine to prevent a multiplicity of suits as denominated by the author in 1 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, § 245, where the dispute is between two individuals, and a number of suits are instituted or about to be instituted successively or simultaneously, all depending upon the same legal questions and similar issues of fact. Such a suit in equity was originally called a "bill of peace," the grounds and purposes of which are quoted in section 248 of Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, supra, as follows:
Actions of ejectment are given as illustrations of the abuse against which equity intervened by denying further litigation "after repeated trials and satisfactory determinations of the question." Speaking further to this particular phase of the equitable doctrine here considered, the author, in section 254, says:
We know of no analogous case in our decisions to that here considered, but the general principles as above noted are fully recognized in Moses v. Mayor, etc., of Mobile, 52 Ala. 198. In Roanoke Guano Co. v. Saunders, 56 So. 198, 199, 173 Ala. 347, 349, 350 (35 L.R.A.[ N.S.] 491), is the following language here pertinent:
This authority also recognizes that "multiplicity of suits does not mean multitude of suits." See, also, 10 R.C.L. p. 283.
Viewed in the light of the origin of this equitable doctrine and the principles recognized in the foregoing authorities, we are of the opinion complainants' case is not brought within its influence. From a practical standpoint, these proceedings may be considered suits instituted by the city, however, as only in consequence of the statute, and give no indication whatever of any vexatious litigation on the part of the city. Reduced to its last analysis, the equitable doctrine in the instant case must rest upon the multitude of suits occasioned merely and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Gadsden v. American Nat. Bank
... ... Ensley v. McWilliams, supra, bill for municipal taxes alleged ... to be unconstitutionally levied was denied; City of ... Albany v. Spragins, 214 Ala. 449, 108 So. 32, where the ... question was the illegality of the city tax and sought ... injunction on the ground of ... ...
-
Penton v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co.
... ... is the owner of certain local improvement bonds issued by the ... city of Florala, Ala., under the provisions of article 33, c ... 43, of the Code, acquired by it in ... complainant's title ... In ... City of Albany v. Spragins et al., 214 Ala. 449, 108 ... So. 32, the complainants were owners of twenty-eight ... ...
-
Persons v. Summers
...it would not be appropriate here. The doctrine of multiplicity of suits does not apply to a multitude of suits. City of Albany v. Spragins, 214 Ala. 449, 108 So. 32. In the Spragins case, we approved the following "The same questions of law are raised in each case, and there is no reason wh......
-
Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co. v. Ross
...New York Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 5 Cir., 23 F.2d 225. "Multiplicity of suits does not mean multitude of suits." City of Albany v. Spragins, 214 Ala. 449, 108 So. 32, 34. To sustain jurisdiction in equity to avoid multiplicity of suits, it should be made to appear that there is no adequat......