Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General
Decision Date | 26 November 1943 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 313. |
Parties | Ex parte STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1944.
Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John W. Rish and H. Grady Tiller, Asst. Attys. Gen., for petitioner.
Horton H. Little, of Luverne, for claimant.
Petition for writ of mandamus by the State of Alabama on relation of William N. McQueen, acting Attorney General, to require Hon A. E. Gamble, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Crenshaw County, Alabama, to set aside and vacate certain orders or judgments entered by him in the case of State of Alabama versus J. D. Yates, Austin Hamilton, claimant, overruling the State's motion to dismiss the claim suit of Austin Hamilton.
The facts are, J. D. Yates is a merchant engaged in the retail grocery business at Luverne in Crenshaw County Alabama, and was so engaged on and prior to March 1, 1937 and continued to be so engaged through March 31, 1941. On, to-wit, August 4th and August 18, 1941, the State Department of Revenue made and entered, under and in accordance with the Sales Tax Act, final assessments against Yates for sales tax, aggregating the sum of to-wit, $1,395.87, and from which assessments no appeal was taken or perfected. Yates failed to pay said assessments, and on February 11, 1942, the State Department of Revenue issued executions against Yates, and placed same in the hands of L. F. Horn, the sheriff of Crenshaw County, to be levied on the property of Yates. Horn delivered copies of the executions to the clerk of the Circuit Court of Crenshaw County, who entered same upon the minutes and upon the execution docket of said court. Thereafter, on to-wit, April 10, 1942, Horn executed said writs of execution by levying on a stock of goods alleged to be owned by and in the possession of Yates. On the same day Austin Hamilton, under and in accordance with the provisions of section 1168, Title 7, Code of 1940, made claim to the property levied on. The State of Alabama, by and through its Attorney General, filed a motion to dismiss the claim of Hamilton. The trial court entered a judgment overruling the motion, hence this petition for writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to vacate and set aside said judgment.
Petitioner insists, first, that the claim filed by Hamilton is in effect a suit against the State of Alabama in violation of section 14 of the Constitution of Alabama, which provides "That the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity." Second, that the Circuit Court of Crenshaw County, Alabama, has no jurisdiction of the parties to the suit, nor over the subject matter involved.
It was said in the case of State v. Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co., 243 Ala. 629, 11 So.2d 342, 345:
And in Riddick v. Employers Ins. Co., 236 Ala. 323, 182 So. 45, it was held that a bill of interpleader could not be maintained against the State of Alabama, by a surety on the official bond of a circuit clerk, in which it was alleged that the State and others claimed the penalty of the bond. It was held in Holmes v. State, 100 Ala. 291, 292, 14 So. 51, that section 14 of the Constitution applies to a cross-bill seeking affirmative relief against the State. See, also, Alabama Girls' Industrial School v. Reynolds, 143 Ala. 579, 42 So. 114; White v. Governor, 18 Ala. 767.
But the above authorities do not decide the question here presented.
To enforce its rights or redress its wrongs, as a political corporation, a state may ordinarily avail itself of any remedy or form of action which would be open to a private suitor under similar circumstances. Wolffe v. State, 79 Ala. 201, 58 Am.Rep. 590. And when it has brought suit it is generally subject to, and its right to relief is usually determined in accordance with, the ordinary rules of law which have been established for the administration of justice between private litigants, except in so far as such rules have been modified by statute in favor of the state, or they have been held inapplicable because of the state's sovereignty, or because their strict application against the state would be unreasonable. 56 Corpus Juris 315, § 469.
Sections 1168 and 1169, Title 7, Code of 1940, are as follows:
This Court has settled the following rules as applicable to every trial of the right of property, in an issue formed under the foregoing statutes be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Epic Tech, LLC
...of any remedy or form of action which would be open to a private suitor under similar circumstances.’ Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 245 Ala. 193, 195, 16 So. 2d 187, 188 (1943) ; seealso Ala. Code 1975, § 6–5–1(a) (‘The state may commence an action in its own name and is entitled......
-
Gordon v. HNS MANAGEMENT CO., INC.
...whether the type of claim was one that could be brought against the defendant despite its general immunity to suit. See Ex parte State, 245 Ala. 193, 16 So.2d 187 (1943) (action against state official that seeks neither to affect interest of state nor to take away its property does not viol......
-
State ex rel. Tyson v. TED'S GAME ENTER.
...of any remedy or form of action which would be open to a private suitor under similar circumstances." Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 245 Ala. 193, 195, 16 So.2d 187, 188 (1943); see also Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-1(a) ("The state may commence an action in its own name and is entitled t......
-
Dolnack v. Metro-North Commuter R. Co., METRO-NORTH
...Co., 93 N.H. 354, 357 [41 A.2d 924 (1945) ]; see Morrill v. American Reserve Bond Co., 151 F. 305, 308-310 [ (1907) ]; Ex parte State, 245 Ala. 193, [16 So.2d 187 (1943) ]; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Shaid, 103 W.Va. 432 [137 S.E. 878 (1927) ]....) Thus, even though the doctrine of sovereign......