Franklin v. State ex rel. Alabama State Milk Control Board
Decision Date | 11 June 1936 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 923 |
Citation | 169 So. 295,232 Ala. 637 |
Parties | FRANKLIN v. STATE ex rel. ALABAMA STATE MILK CONTROL BOARD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 16, 1936
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.F. Thompson, Judge.
Bill for injunction by the State, on the relation of the Alabama State Milk Control Board, against H.G. Franklin. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill and overruling motion to dissolve temporary injunction, respondent appeals.
Affirmed.
Hugh A Locke, of Birmingham, for appellant.
D.S Satterwhite, White E. Gibson, White E. Gibson, Jr., and Dan. M. Gibson, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The appeal in this case is prosecuted by the appellant, respondent in the court below, from a decree of the circuit court of Jefferson county, overruling respondent's demurrers to the bill filed against him by the Alabama state milk control board, and from the decree overruling the respondent's motion to dissolve the temporary injunction.
The case involves the constitutionality of the act known as the "Milk Control Board," so termed and called in the act (Gen.Acts 1935, p. 204).
The bill charges that the appellant "sold from his store, on divers occasions, sweet milk retailed and delivered at the door steps of consumers within the boundaries of the Birmingham Milk Shed at a price of thirteen cents per quart, which is less than the minimum price fixed by the Alabama State Milk Control Board for the sale of such milk in the Birmingham Milk Shed." That respondent has stated to the complainant his intention to continue to sell milk at a price less than that fixed by the said board; and that said unlawful conduct on the part of respondent, if allowed to continue, will cause irreparable injury to the milk dealers, producers, and producer-distributors, who are complying with the lawful orders of the board in marketing and selling milk in the Birmingham milk shed.
The prayer of the bill was for the issuance of a temporary injunction or restraining order, enjoining or restraining the respondent from selling milk below the minimum prices fixed for the sale of such milk by the Alabama state milk control board; and upon final hearing for a permanent injunction.
The bill was filed on December 4, 1935, and on the same day, on the order of the circuit judge, Hon. J.F. Thompson, a temporary injunction, in accordance with the prayer of the bill, was issued and served upon the respondent.
The respondent appeared and moved to dissolve the injunction, and also demurred to the bill on numerous constitutional grounds. The court overruled the motion and also the demurrers, and from this decree he appeals.
The demurrers of the respondent take the point that the act creating the Alabama state milk control board offends sections 5, 6, 11, 13, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 103, and 139 of the State Constitution, and also amendments 5, 7, and 14 of the Constitution of the United States.
The act in question was approved by the Governor of Alabama on July 9, 1935 (Gen.Acts 1935, p. 204).
By this act the Legislature of Alabama, inter alia, created and established a milk control board, with certain defined powers and duties, among those powers and duties was the power to designate natural marketing areas, which shall constitute the respective milk sheds of the state, and to fix, by official order, minimum and maximum prices for milk in the different milk sheds.
In view of the fact that the Legislature passed the act as an emergency matter, we deem it profitable, for a proper understanding of the applicable rules of law applying to such legislation, that certain provisions of the act should be here quoted.
Section 1 of the act provides:
The legislative declaration set forth in the quoted section of the act discloses that the Legislature of Alabama, at that time, was of the opinion that there did in fact exist an emergency, and that the conditions then prevailing in the milk industry of the state threatened to destroy and seriously impair the future supply of milk to the people of the state.
In view of the ruling upon the demurrer by the trial court, and the legislative declaration of the existence of an emergency in the milk industry, which at least is prima facie true, we are justified in treating the case on this appeal upon the theory that there was in fact such emergency at the time of the passage of the act, since we judicially know nothing to the contrary. Chastleton Corporation v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 44 S.Ct. 405, 68 L.Ed. 841; People v. Title & Mortgage Guarantee Co., 264 N.Y. 69, 190 N.E. 153, 96 A.L.R. 297; Wilson Banking Co. Liquidating Corp. v. Colvard, 172 Miss. 804, 161 So. 123.
In determining the validity of the act now attacked upon constitutional grounds, the mudsill question to be determined is whether or not the enactment was a reasonable exercise of the police power of the state; or, in other words, whether the relief intended to be given is of a character appropriate to the existing emergency, and reasonably intended to protect against, or to alleviate, the calamitous conditions prevailing or threatened.
The limits of a state's police power has never been fixed, nor its boundaries defined. It is not subject to any definite limitations or boundaries, but it represents the state's great reserve power, and is at all times coextensive with the necessities of the case and the safeguard of the public interest. State v. Kartus, 230 Ala. 352, 162 So. 533, 101 A.L.R. 1336, 1337; Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 524, 17 S.Ct. 864, 42 L.Ed. 260.
In the case of Samuel Thurlow v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 5 How. 504, 583, 12 L.Ed. 256, Chief Justice Taney, in speaking of the police power of a state, made the following observation:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew
...265 N.W. 197; Albert v. Milk Control Board (Ind.Sup.) 200 N.E. 688; Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, 322 Pa. 257, 186 A. 336; Franklin v. State, 232 Ala. 637, 169 So. 295; Miami Home Milk Producers Ass'n v. Milk Control Board (Fla.) 169 So. 541. In three states, the Supreme Court, without ques......
-
Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd.
... ... v. FLORIDA DRY CLEANING & LAUNDRY BOARD et al. Florida Supreme Court July 27, 1938 ... Laundry Board, an official board of the state of Florida, ... challenging the constitutional ... 829; Coleman, ... Sheriff, v. State ex rel. Lichtenstein, 128 Fla. 408, ... 174 So. 829; ... 549, 81 L.Ed. 835; ... Miami Home Milk Producers Association v. Milk Control ... Board, ... Alabama, ... [183 So. 775] ... in City of Mobile v ... Franklin v. Alabama Milk Control Board, 232 Ala ... ...
-
Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory
... ... fundamental law State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Murphy, ... 237 Ala. 332, 186 So. 487, 121 ... the United States in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones ... & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct ... 332, 186 So. 487, 121 A.L.R. 283; ... Franklin v. State, 232 Ala. 637, 169 So. 295; ... Leary v. Adams, ... legislation is otherwise within state control, the question ... has been whether the prescribed rule of ... ...
-
State v. Auclair
...issue before us was not considered. Other decisions, in which the question was raised, are not especially helpful. In Franklin v. State, 232 Ala. 637, 169 So. 295, 301, the contention that the authority was an unlawful delegation of legislative power was summarily dismissed with the curt re......