Drake Associates, Inc. v. Letson

Decision Date04 March 1965
Docket Number8 Div. 178
Citation172 So.2d 536,277 Ala. 512
PartiesDRAKE ASSOCIATES, INC. v. Kenneth N. LETSON et al.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Bell, Richardson, Cleary, McLain & Tucker, Huntsville, for appellant.

Cloud, Berry & Ables and Lanier, Price, Shaver & Lanier, Huntsville, for appellees.

SIMPSON, Justice.

Appeal from the refusal of the Circuit Court of Madison County to grant a temporary injunction pending a declaratory judgment action. The bill was in the nature of a bill of peace which sought a declaratory judgment and temporary injunction or alternatively a stay of proceedings of certain suits on the law side of the Circuit Court which were all appeals from a decision of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Huntsville.

No evidence was presented at the hearing of the bill; only the sworn bill of complaint. Appellant is a corporation composed of a group of physicians who propose to build a private hospital and purchased a tract of land pursuant to these plans which tract of land was zoned 'Residence 1 A' by the City of Huntsville. A section of the zoning ordinance provides that a special exception may be granted in Residence 1 A districts for the construction of a private hospital. After an open hearing before the Board of Adjustment the members of the Board voted to grant the requested special exception provided that no physicians' offices should be located on the tract; no nurses' quarters or employees' quarters be located on the tract; the pharmacy would be used only for inpatients; and the hospital would contain a minimum of 225 beds. Numerous landowners in the surrounding area, who are appellees herein, filed appeals to the Circuit Court in some five separate cases. Appellant also filed its appeal to the Circuit Court stating that it was also aggrieved by the Board's decision. All these appeals demanded trials by jury.

Appellant's bill for declaratory judgment averred in substance as follows: that it was the real party in interest in all appeals--not the Board of Adjustment--in that its interest was adverse to other parties; that it believed that the Board of Adjustment would not defend the appeals brought against it; that a bona fide dispute existed; that it has no adequate remedy at law; that the bill would settle in one proceeding the rights of all parties concerned and would grant appellant relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to its rights which would result from the trial of seven different independent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ingram v. Omelet Shoppe, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1980
    ...Co. v. Self, 279 Ala. 488, 187 So.2d 244 (1966). The trial court's latitude in this area is considerable. Drake Associates, Inc. v. Letson, 277 Ala. 512, 172 So.2d 536 (1965). At the time the temporary restraining order was issued, OSI was on the verge of bankruptcy. (R. at pp. 1639-1943). ......
  • City of Huntsville v. Morring
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 23, 1969
    ...a special exception allowing such construction. In their brief, counsel for appellants refer to the case of Drake Associates, Inc. v. Letson, 277 Ala. 512, 172 So.2d 536. The cited case, as we understand it, involved the same five acres of land here involved, a special exception granted by ......
  • Watts v. Victory
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1976
    ...Valley Heating, Cooling & Electric Co. v. Alabama Gas Corporation, 286 Ala. 79, 237 So.2d 470 (1970); Drake Associates, Inc. v. Letson, 277 Ala. 512, 172 So.2d 536 (1965). We have defined an abuse of this discretion as '. . . exceeding the bounds of reason, all the circumstances before the ......
  • Lorch, Inc. v. Bessemer Mall Shopping Center, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1975
    ...U.S. 215, 95 S.Ct. 409, 42 L.Ed.3d 399; Willowbrook Country Club, Inc. v. Ferrell, 286 Ala. 281, 239 So.2d 298; Drake Associates, Inc. v. Letson, 277 Ala. 512, 172 So.2d 536. But as stated in 5A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1591, p. 'The discretion exercised by the trial court is, however, a l......
  • 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