Hallock v. Smith
Citation | 207 Ala. 567,93 So. 588 |
Decision Date | 27 April 1922 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 652. |
Parties | HALLOCK v. SMITH. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1922.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.
Action by Marie L. Smith against Mary V. Hallock. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals, under section 6, p. 450, Acts 1911. Reversed and remanded.
J. H Ward and J. L. Drennen, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Smith Wilkinson & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Appellee declared against appellant in an action for damages on account of a personal injury. The report sets out count 1 of the complaint. Count 2 requires no special attention.
And the same section provides, thus further defining the legislative purpose, that upon the failure of any person, "whose duty it may be, to remedy any unsafe, unsanitary, or dangerous condition of any building," or remove the same, upon notice to be prescribed by the city, the municipal authorities may proceed to repair or remove at the expense of the owner. Section 487 of the Municipal Code of Birmingham makes it "unlawful for any person, firm or corporation owning any building *** to keep or maintain the same in an unsafe or untenantable condition," and makes it the duty of every person owning any building or structure in the city to keep the same in a safe and tenantable condition or to cause the same to be removed. This ordinance is made for the benefit of the public, in derogation of private right, and is not to be extended as to persons or remedies beyond the clear language of the statute. In accordance with the general rule that where a power is conferred upon a municipal corporation to be exercised in a manner particularly described, it follows that where the charter-in this case the act of August 20, 1915-provides the manner in which ordinances...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adler v. Miller
...and, "in the absence of a covenant to repair," the rule is that of the common law-"the lessee's eyes are his bargain." Hallock v. Smith, 207 Ala. 567, 93 So. 588; Brown v. Dwight Mfg. Co., 200 Ala. 376, 76 So. L. R. A. 1917F, 997; Moore v. Weber, 71 Pa. 429, 10 Am. Rep. 708; Gill v. Middlet......
-
Gulf Electric Co. v. Fried
... ... 635; Greer v. Heyer, 216 Ala. 229, 113 ... So. 14; Ex parte Adams, 216 Ala. 353, 113 So. 513 ... In the ... case of Smith v. L. & N.R. Co., 208 Ala. 440, 441, ... 94 So. 489, the plaintiff's demurrers to several pleas ... were overruled, and two years thereafter it is ... where the landlord undertook to make repairs may be held ... liable for injuries resulting from the negligent manner of ... the work. Hallock v. Smith, 207 Ala. 567, 93 So ... 588; Id., 210 Ala. 529, 98 So. 781; Spangler v ... Hobson, 212 Ala. 105, 101 So. 828; Abbott v. Ala ... ...
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Zeidler, 6 Div. 935
... ... make repairs, may be held liable for injuries resulting from ... the negligent manner of the work. Hallock v. Smith, ... 207 Ala. 567, 93 So. 588; Smith v. Hallock, 210 Ala ... 529, 98 So. 781; Spangler v. Hobson, 212 Ala. 105, ... 101 So. 828; Abbott ... ...
-
Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc. v. Castleberry, 8 Div. 873.
...Co. v. Fried, 218 Ala. 684, 119 So. 685. The following cases are contrary to those cited in the OPINION of Appeals: Hallock v. Smith, 207 Ala. 567, 93 So. 588; Spangler v. Hobson, 212 Ala. 105, 101 So. Abbott v. Alabama Power Co., 214 Ala. 281, 107 So. 811; Charlie's Transfer Co. v. Malone,......