City of Prichard v. Alabama Power Co.
| Citation | 234 Ala. 339,175 So. 294 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 964 |
| Parties | CITY OF PRICHARD v. ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; J. Blocker Thornton Judge.
Bill for injunction by the City of Prichard against the Alabama Power Company. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
George A. Sossaman, of Mobile, for appellant.
Inge & Stallworth, of Mobile, and Martin Turner & McWhorter and Bolling R. Powell, Jr., all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The appeal is from an interlocutory decree sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the amended bill.
The bill, filed by the appellant, seeks a mandatory injunction compelling the appellee to remove its poles and wires from the public streets within the corporate limits of the municipality, on the ground that they are a public nuisance.
The bill alleges that the complainant was incorporated August 12 1925; that prior thereto the streets designated by name in the amended bill had been laid out, opened up, and dedicated to the public as public "streets and roads" in Mobile county, Ala., that after such dedication and before complainant was incorporated, the defendant "without the consent of the Board of Revenue and Road Commissioners of Mobile County," erected poles and wires upon and over said streets for the purpose of conducting an electric power business and furnishing such power to consumers for value and has continuously since that time maintained said poles and wires upon said streets operating an electric power business thereon, delivering large quantities of electricity of voltage dangerous to life, for the purpose of supplying consumers of electricity with such electric current.
After the erection of said poles and wires, the complainant became incorporated as a municipal corporation "and acquired as a part of said city the streets hereinabove named and accepted them as public streets of said city." That the authorities of said municipality have not given consent that the defendant could erect or maintain said poles and wires on said streets, or use said streets for the conduct of said business as required by section 220 of the Constitution of 1901.
"That said poles and wires constitute a permanent obstruction of said streets and constitute a public nuisance thereon, and that the continuance of said obstructions upon said streets will work irreparable injury to the complainant in that it will prevent the free and unobstructed use of said streets of the City of Prichard by the citizens thereof and the public generally who are entitled to use same for the purpose of traversing same."
The demurrer takes the points that the bill is without equity; that the defendant was authorized by the statute, Code 1907, § 3631 (Code 1923, § 7197), to erect and maintain its poles and wires along said public highways, subject to the regulation of the court of county commissioners or board of revenue of the county, and that the averments of the bill, last above quoted, are mere conclusions of the pleader.
Municipalities are authorized by statute to "maintain a bill in equity in the name of the city to abate or enjoin any public nuisance injurious to the health, morals, comfort or welfare of the community, or any portion thereof." Code 1923, § 9298; Lonoke v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 92 Ark. 546, 123 S.W. 395, 135 Am.St.Rep. 200.
There is an absence of allegation that the maintenance of said poles and wires interferes with or obstructs the ordinary and usual travel on said streets.
The first contention of appellant is that defendant's poles and wires were placed along said streets or highways without authority from the county board of revenue and roads prior to the incorporation of the people and territory as a municipality, and therefore the only rights defendant has or had is the right of a "squatter" which, by force of the provision of section 220 of the Constitution, was superseded and destroyed when complainant was incorporated and said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Los Angeles
....... The city's first point is that the power to issue primary franchises to operate a telephone business rests in the city. A primary franchise ...Woodhaven Gaslight Co. v. Deehan, 153 N.Y. 528, 47 N.E. 787; City of Prichard v. Alabama Power Co., 234 Ala. 339, 175 So. 294; Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Town of Belen, ......
-
Clarke-Washington Elec. Membership Corp. v. Alabama Power Co.
...of 1901. In support of its position the appellant cites two cases which we should carefully examine. In City of Prichard v. Alabama Power Company, 234 Ala. 339, 175 So. 294, the city sought a mandatory injunction to compel the power company to remove its poles and wires from the public stre......
-
Whaley v. Park City Mun. Corp.
...activity] would be enforced, or perhaps he might restrain them by injunction. Id. at 640; see also City of Prichard v. Alabama Power Co., 234 Ala. 339, 175 So. 294, 294-96 (1937) (rejecting public nuisance claim where defendant was specifically authorized to erect power lines); Middelkamp v......
-
Incorporated Town of Hempstead v. Gulf States Util. Co., A-1167.
...previously obtained under the general statutes. Accordingly, the authorities cited by the company, such as City of Prichard v. Alabama Power Co., 234 Ala. 339, 175 So. 294, holding in effect that vested rights held by power companies could not ordinarily be superseded by the subsequent inco......