City of Birmingham v. Allen
Decision Date | 24 June 1948 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 667. |
Parties | CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. ALLEN. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 31, 1948.
Graham Bibb, Wingo & Foster, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Gibson & Hewitt, of Birmingham, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree of the equity court overruling the demurrer to a bill in equity. The allegations of the bill which need to be here considered, show in substance the following.
Appellee is a master plumber, as defined in § 119, Title 62, Code of 1940. He is engaged in such business in the City of Birmingham and is duly qualified and licensed by the Board of Plumbers of the State of Alabama and by the City of Birmingham. On to wit, March 18, 1947, a Municipal Plumbing Code was adopted by Ordinance 581F of the City of Birmingham. Section 22 of said Municipal Plumbing Code provides as follows:
Section 29 of said Municipal Plumbing Code provides as follows 'Sec. 29: Definitions Of Terms Used In This Code:
Appellee and others similarly qualified and licensed as master and journeymen plumbers in the City of Birmingham have property and pecuniary rights which will be and are detrimentally affected by the above quoted proviso, in that they earn their living as plumbers in said city. Appellee and other resident citizens of the city are detrimentally affected by the adoption and operation of said proviso in that the proviso attempts to legalize installation of water pipe by persons not qualified or licensed so to do, 'same constituting a menace to public health and safety'. With knowledge and approval of the appellant, its commissioners and employees having the duty to enforce the laws of the State of Alabama defining and regulating plumbing, installations of water pipe have been made and installations of water pipe are continuing to be made contrary to the laws of the State of Alabama defining the regulating plumbing on many and divers occasions by certified gas fitters who are not and at the time of installations were not, qualified or licensed as master or journeymen plumbers under the laws of the State of Alabama.
An actionable controversy is alleged to exist between appellant and appellee. The prayer of the bill is for a declaratory judgment declaring invalid the quoted provision which is as follows: 'Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall make it unlawful for certified gas fitters to install not exceeding ten (10) feet of water pipe in connection with the replacement of any gas appliance.'
Counsel appear to agree that two questions are presented on this appeal, (1) the right of appellee to question the validity of the proviso set forth above contained in Sections 22 and 29 of the Municipal Plumbing Code relating to the installation of water pipe by gas fitters and (2) the validity of the proviso.
According to § 157, Title 7, Code of 1940, any person 'whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by * * * municipal ordinance * * *, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the * * * ordinance * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.' The bill alleges in substance that complainant is a resident citizen and taxpayer of the City of Birmingham and is a master plumber as defined by § 119, Title 62, Code of 1940, and that he is duly authorized, qualified and licensed by the Board of Plumbers of the state and by the municipality to engage in such occupation.
There is no doubt that the occupation of a plumber is connected with the public health and as such is a proper subject for police regulation. In recognition of this fact the legislature adopted the Plumbing Code (§ 115 et seq., Title 62, Code of 1940). The occupation being connected with the public health and safety, the legislature has seen fit to forbid all but those qualified by experience examination and license...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Bessemer v. Bessemer Theatres
... ... Edw ... L. Ball, of Bessemer, for appellant ... [252 ... Ala. 119] Francis H. Hare, of Birmingham, for ... appellee ... STAKELY, ... Bessemer ... Theatres, Incorporated filed its bill, in equity, for a ... to support the jurisdiction of the court for a declaratory ... judgment. Title 7, § 156 et seq., Code of 1940; City of ... Birmingham v. Allen, Ala.Sup., 36 So.2d 297. However, it ... is not always appropriate to make a construction or ... determination of rights or status on a demurrer to ... ...
-
Phenix City v. Putnam, 4 Div. 979
...Williamson v. City of Anniston, 215 Ala. 532, 112 So. 109; City of Tuscaloosa v. Hanly, 227 Ala. 513, 150 So. 499; City of Birmingham v. Allen, 251 Ala. 198, 36 So.2d 297. The case of City of Birmingham v. Bergreen, 18 Ala.App. 636, 94 So. 195, is in point. There, an ordinance imposing a $1......
-
Mobile Battle House v. City of Mobile
...as to support the jurisdiction of the court to render a declaratory decree. § 156 et seq., Title 7, Code 1940; City of Birmingham v. Allen, 251 Ala. 198, 36 So.2d 297; City of Bessemer v. Bessemer Theatres, 252 Ala. 117, 39 So.2d 658; Alabama Ice & Utilities Co. v. City of Montgomery, 252 A......