City of Decatur v. Meadors, 8 Div. 887.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtBROWN, Justice.
Citation180 So. 550,235 Ala. 544
Docket Number8 Div. 887.
Decision Date14 April 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; A. A. Griffith, Judge.

Bill for injunction by B. D. Meadors and others, as partners doing business under the firm name and style of the City Cab Company, against the City of Decatur and officers thereof. From a decree for complainants, respondents appeal, and complainants move to dismiss the appeal.

Motion to dismiss appeal overruled. Reversed, rendered, and remanded.

Julian Harris and Peach & Caddell, all of Decatur, for appellants.

S. A Lynne and Ben L. Britnell, both of Decatur, for appellees.

BROWN Justice.

The bill is filed by appellees as a partnership doing business as City Cab Company against the City of Decatur, the mayor and aldermen, the chief of police, and the city clerk, the original bill seeking an injunction restraining and enjoining the defendants "from prohibiting complainants, their agents, servants, or employees, from operating in the City of Decatur, Alabama, and in the police jurisdiction thereof taxicabs or cars, for hire, the property of City Cab Company without a license," and restraining "said respondents from arresting or causing to be arrested said complainants, their agents, servants or employees, operating their cabs in the corporate limits of the City of Decatur, Alabama, or the police juridiction thereof, for hire, without a license." (Italics supplied.)

The bill was amended by adding to the prayer "that the defendants be restrained and enjoined from withholding from them their property rights and privileges and be required by a decree of this Court, to execute and perform the ministerial act of granting a permit to these complainants to operate cabs over and along the streets of the City of Decatur."

As a basis for this relief the bill, to state its averments in substance, avers that said municipality passed an ordinance on January 24, 1938, providing for licensing of cab and taxicabs in the City of Decatur, upon certain conditions--among others that: "No license shall be issued for the operation for hire of any cab, automobile, bus or motor vehicle using the streets of the City of Decatur without a permit being granted by the City Council of the City of Decatur for the use of the streets of the City by such person, firm, or corporation for a taxicab business."

That the complainant, organized in the latter part of January, 1938, has complied with all the conditions of said ordinance except that it has not obtained said permit or privilege, and "the only reason or excuse offered them by the City of Decatur, Alabama, and its officials for not granting said complainants permit to operate their cabs in the City of Decatur, Alabama, was that it had issued licenses and granted a permit to the Decatur Cab Service, and, that under the present circumstances the City of Decatur felt that said Decatur Cab Service had sufficient facilities to handle the business in the City of Decatur, Alabama."

That there is no provision in the ordinance limiting the number of cabs or taxicabs to be operated. That the said partnership has in good faith expended large sums of money to procure liability insurance to comply with the terms of the ordinance. That it owns property which the individuals constituting the partnership have been using for the conduct of a taxicab business without a permit or license, and that it has a right to use of the streets without the interruption or interference of the City of Decatur or its officials.

That said City Cab Company has applied to the city clerk for the issuance of a license, made proof of the ownership of its cabs, and has tendered the amount of the license tax and fee, but such license has been refused because it could not tender to said clerk a permit from the city council as required by said ordinance.

On the filing of the bill, application was made to Judge Griffith, for an interlocutory injunction, and the matter was set down for hearing on notice, as authorized by section 8304 of the Code 1923. The hearing was on the bill, verified by affidavit, sworn answer, and proof.

On January 12, 1938, the judge granted a fiat or order directing the register, upon the complainants' entering into bond in the sum of $500, conditioned and payable as required by law, with approved surety, to issue an injunction, "requiring the City Council of the City of Decatur, Alabama, to execute and perform the ministerial act of granting a permit to the above bound complainants in said cause to operate taxi cabs over and along the streets of the City of Decatur, Alabama, and that, upon procuring said permit, and upon compliance with the other requirements of Ordinance No. 300, adopted by the City Council of the City of Decatur, Alabama, on January 24, 1938, a license be issued to the said complainants to operate their motor taxi cabs for hire in the City of Decatur, Alabama, for the transportation of passengers and their property."

The injunction was issued and served on the defendants on the 14th day of February, 1938, and on the same day the defendants appealed, executing a supersedeas bond in accordance with the provision of section 6134 of the Code 1923....

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • City of Birmingham v. Holt, 6 Div. 626.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 22 Febrero 1940
    ...ordinance); Williams v. City of Albany, 216 Ala. 408, 113 So. 257 (license of motor vehicle); City of Decatur et al. v. Meadors et al., 235 Ala. 544, 180 So. 550 (use of streets by taxi cab); Ex parte City of Birmingham, 199 Ala. 9, 74 So. 51, (sale of property and franchise of suburban str......
  • Walls v. City of Guntersville, 8 Div. 523
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 30 Marzo 1950 supersede the decree and maintains the status quo, where the status is a condition of rest and not action. City of Decatur v. Meadors, 235 Ala. 544, 180 So. Certainly the State cannot be required to give a bond as contemplated by § 1059, Title 7, Code 1940. American Book Co. v. State, 21......
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Citizens of State of Ala.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 26 Febrero 1988
    ...granted by the Legislature, the city has the additional right to grant a franchise to whomever they desire. In City of Decatur v. Meadors, 235 Ala. 544, 180 So. 550 (1938), the Court "It is well settled that no one has a natural or inherent right to operate motor vehicles, as a common carri......
  • Drill Parts & Service Co., Inc. v. Joy Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 23 Septiembre 1983
    ...damage which would ensue from withholding it." International Molders, supra, 348 So.2d at 1390, quoting City of Decatur v. Meadors, 235 Ala. 544, 180 So. 550 In the review of other cases, the standard in Alabama Educational Association, supra is to be followed: "Initially, we define the per......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT