Corte v. State, 1 Div. 525
Decision Date | 29 October 1953 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 525 |
Citation | 67 So.2d 782,259 Ala. 536 |
Parties | CORTE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Hubert M. Hall, Bay Minette, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and George O. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree of the circuit court of Baldwin County, in equity, overruling a motion to dissolve, and sustaining a temporary injunction. The appeal is authorized by Sec. 757, Tit. 7 of the Code of Alabama 1940. The bill of complaint alleges in substance that, at the time of filing and for a period of time immediately preceding the filing thereof, appellant, at Loxely, Alabama, was engaged in the business of producing, buying for resale, packing, selling, and shipping, and sold, and shipped from Loxley, Alabama, vegetables of the type and variety governed by the provisions of Act No. 977 of the Legislature of Alabama of 1951, p. 1650, Code 1940, Tit. 2, § 315(9) et seq.; that he did refuse to allow authorized agents or inspectors of the State Commissioner of Agriculture, entrance into the premises of his establishment for the purpose of inspecting and examining packages of vegetables to determine whether said packages of said produce were in compliance with the enforcement provisions of said Act No. 977. The bill further avers that it is necessary for said agents and inspectors to enter said establishment for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of said law, and that, without access to such premises, the Commissioner cannot effectively enforce the provisions of such law, or perform the duties placed upon him by the provisions thereof. The bill alleges further that the conduct of the respondent, in denying the agents or inspectors of the Commissioner access to the premises of appellant, has prevented the Commissioner from enforcing the provisions of said Act No. 977, and that it is necessary and vital to the enforcement of this law that said agents and inspectors enter said establishment, which establishment is used for receiving, buying, packing, selling, and shipping vegetables of the type and variety governed by the provisions of said law, and that complainant has no adequate remedy at law to compel appellant to allow agents or inspectors of the State Commissioner of Agriculture to enter his premises, although they have the legal right so to do.
Act No. 977 of the Legislature of 1951, is in the following language:
'An Act
'To provide for the inspection and grading of fresh fruits and vegetables grown in Alabama; prescribing the standard grade or grades for such fruits and vegetables; providing for the administration of the Act by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries and the Department of Agriculture and Industries; and prescribing penalties for violations of the Act.
'Be It Enacted by the Legislature of Alabama:
'Section 1. Declaration of Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to improve the grade and quality of fresh fruits and vegetables produced in Alabama in order that they may sell in competition with those produced in other areas. The fruit and vegetable industry is of great economic importance not only to the farmers of Alabama but to the general economy of the State and it has been found that fruits and vegetables produced and packed in Alabama are generally of substandard quality. Several neighboring states have enacted laws providing for shipping point inspection and grading of fruits and vegetables which laws have resulted in improving the quality and grade of fresh fruits and vegetables produced, packed and shipped from these states which has been to the economic gain and benefit to producers. Therefore, it is deemed for the best interest of the agricultural economy of the State of Alabama to regulate the shipping and packing of fresh fruits and vegetables by requiring and providing shipping point inspection for such agricultural commodities.
'Section 2. Definitions.--For the purpose of this Act--(a) The term 'person' means any individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association. (b) The term 'grower' means a bona fide producer of fresh fruits and vegetables either by self, or by tenant sharecropper or by hired person. (c) The term 'Closed package's means any basket, hamper, crate, carton, bag or other container used in the marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables if such container is closed with a lid of any description. (d) The term 'fresh fruits and vegetables' shall include green corn, tomatoes, Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes, peaches, strawberries, cucumbers (sold for slicing purposes) and cabbages.
'Approved September 12, 1951.
'Time: 6:56 P.M.'
The motion to dissolve the temporary injunction challenges the equity of the bill, stated in various ways, and seriously argues for reversal on two grounds. First, that the Commissioner of Agriculture had not taken formal action under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act to require the grading of fruits and vegetables in the area in which appellant's fruits and vegetables were grown. The second point argued by appellant for a reversal of the case, is that the injunction was issued to prevent the commission of an alleged criminal offense, and that the penal provisions of the Act provide an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Western Grain Co. Cases, 6 Div. 374
...McLean v. Church of God, 254 Ala. 134, 138, 47 So.2d 257; Lukes v. Alabama Power Co., 257 Ala. 590, 592, 60 So.2d 349; Corte v. State, 259 Ala. 536, 542, 67 So.2d 782. We do not think the trial court abused its discretion in denying the applications for temporary injunctions and it follows ......
-
State ex rel. Marshall v. Ty Green's Massage Therapy, Inc.
...in this case.4 This Court long ago considered the question whether criminal prosecution is an adequate remedy. See Corte v. State, 259 Ala. 536, 541, 67 So. 2d 782, 786 (1953). We held that it is not: " ‘Where an injunction is necessary for the protection for public rights, property or welf......
-
State v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.
... ... Syllabus by the Court ... 1. The legislature in the exercise of its police power may in the interest ... Bosch v. Denny's Place, 98 Ohio App. 351, 129 N.E.2d 532; Corte v. State, 259 ... Page 110 ... Ala. 536, 67 So.2d 782; Commonwealth ... ...
-
Lauderdale County Bd. of Ed. v. Alexander
...from by all the respondents. An appeal from this decree is allowed by Tit. 7, § 757, Code 1940, and was the method used in Corte v. State, 259 Ala. 536, 67 So.2d 782. The second decree is an interlocutory decree rendered by the court overruling the demurrers of two of the seven respondents ......