City of Birmingham v. Henry, 6 Div. 32.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 32. |
| Citation | 224 Ala. 239,139 So. 283 |
| Parties | CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. HENRY. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Russell McElroy, Judge.
Bill for injunction by the City of Birmingham against Eugene Henry. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill and dismissing it, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Horace C. Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Thos. J. Judge and W. B. Harrison, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
The bill is by the city of Birmingham to enjoin the commissioner of licenses of Jefferson county from assessing and collecting the city ad valorem taxes on motor vehicles.
The purpose of the bill is to challenge the constitutionality of the Act of July 16, 1931, creating the office of commissioner of licenses in counties of 300,000 or more population, etc.; and particularly subsection (f) of section 15 of the act, empowering the commissioner to assess and collect such ad valorem taxes and retain a commission of 5 per cent. for his services in addition to the salary and other perquisites provided in the act.
The controlling questions in the case are involved in the case of State ex rel. Ward v. Henry (Ala. Sup.) 139 So. 278, a proceeding by quo warranto considered along with this cause, and pursuing the proper remedy to test the legal existence of a public office. State ex rel. Garrett v. Torbert, 200 Ala. 663, 77 So. 37.
This cause is affirmed on the authority of the decision this day rendered in State ex rel. Ward v. Henry, supra. We need not, therefore, consider the remedy in equity by injunction to prevent abuse of official power under color of unconstitutional provisions of a statute. 32 C.J. p. 243, § 385.
If, as argued, the city has a grievance because of increased commissions and excessive compensation to the commissioner, such grievance is against the legislative department of government. The judicial department cannot control legislative discretion, nor inquire into the motives of legislators. The autonomy of the coequal departments of government is of prime importance. Our function in this connection is solely to confine legislation within constitutional bounds. In usurping the functions of the Legislature, the court would violate the Constitution (Const. 1901, § 43).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. Todd
...p. 487. 'The judicial department cannot control legislative discretion, nor inquire into the motives of legislators.' City of Birmingham v. Henry, 224 Ala. 239, 139 So. 283. * * See, also, May v. Head, 210 Ala. 112, 96 So. 869. The following from Wiseman v. Madison Cadillac Co., 191 Ark. 10......
-
State ex rel. Bozeman v. Hester, 8 Div. 755
...p. 487. 'The judicial department cannot control legislative discretion, nor inquire into the motives of legislators.' City of Birmingham v. Henry, 224 Ala. 239, 139 So. 283. See, also, State ex rel. Russum v. Jefferson County Commission, 224 Ala. 229, 139 So. 243; * * It is our solemn duty ......
-
State, on Inf. of Murphy v. Brooks
... ... v. Brooks et al., Board of Revenue and Control. 3 Div. 336Supreme Court of AlabamaMarch 27, 1941 ... public office." City of Birmingham v. Henry, ... 224 Ala. 239, 139 So. 283; ... members thereof and fix their terms of office; (6) to provide ... for the election of their successors and ... ...
-
Whitson v. Baker
...function is to interpret legislation and to confine it within constitutional bounds. Alabama Constitution, § 43; City of Birmingham v. Henry, 224 Ala. 239, 139 So. 283 (1931). The argument of the Defense Lawyers Association is one which should be addressed to the federal The defendants also......