Hamilton v. Alabama Power Co.
Citation | 70 So. 737,195 Ala. 438 |
Decision Date | 18 June 1915 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 732 |
Parties | HAMILTON et al. v. ALABAMA POWER CO. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
On Rehearing, December 16, 1915
Appeal from Chancery Court, Talladega County; W.W. Whiteside Chancellor.
Bill by the Alabama Power Company against G.F. Hamilton and others. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.
Stallings Nesmith, Hunt & Judge, of Birmingham, and Riddle, Ellis & Riddle, of Goodwater, for appellants.
Thomas W. Martin and Percy, Benners & Burr, all of Birmingham, O.R Hood, of Gadsden, and Knox, Acker, Dixon & Bingham, of Talladega, for appellee.
This case was considered and decided under new rule 46, and the opinion of the court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice ANDERSON.
This is a bill of peace, by this complainant, to enjoin the prosecution of numerous actions at law against it. The first and paramount step to be taken by a complainant in a bill of this character is the averment of a complete defense to the actions sought to be enjoined. He cannot invoke equity merely to have his wrongdoing adjudged in one suit instead of seven hundred. Turner v. City of Mobile, 135 Ala. 73, 33 So. 132.
The bill avers a series of suits for sickness resulting from conditions created by this complainant, as well as suits for damages to lands and property of the plaintiffs therein resulting from the erection and maintenance of the complainant's dam across the Coosa river. The bill sets up that the various suits at law, either expressly or by implication, charge that in raising, backing, and maintaining said waters as aforesaid and under the conditions aforesaid the complainant's action was wrongful; that in a great many of said suits, and in other counts, the plaintiffs also aver and charge that the creating and maintaining of said pool of water in the aforesaid condition was negligent; and, again, in other counts, they charge that orator willfully, wantonly, and intentionally created and maintained said pool of water. The bill also avers that the plaintiffs contended, in effect, that the things charged constituted a continuing nuisance. The bill does not advise us as to what suits proceed upon the sole theory of injuries to the plaintiffs' property, and what ones are for injuries to the person; what ones charge a nuisance in the erection and maintenance of the dam and pool of water, or what ones, if any there be, charge negligence on the part of complainant in the erection and maintenance of the conditions causing injury to the plaintiffs' persons or property. The bill negatives generally and in detail any negligence on complainant's part and, in fact, charges that conditions are no worse since the creation of its works than they were before. The complainant also relies upon the fact that its works cannot be regarded as a nuisance, because not only sanctioned by, but the dam was constructed in compliance with, the law, federal and state.
If the conditions complained of by the plaintiffs do not exist, that is, if the pool of water in question has not injured any property rights, or has in no way rendered the community less healthful, etc., then the complainant has a complete and adequate defense to all of said actions. On the other hand, if the injuries complained of do exist, and the complainant has been guilty of negligence which proximately caused same, the complainant would be liable although the law authorized the construction and maintenance of the dam. If, however, the complainant has not been guilty of negligence, it is not liable as for the erection or maintenance of a nuisance, for the reason that the thing done was authorized by law, except perhaps for injuries to the plaintiffs' property--as will be hereinafter discussed.
The foregoing is in line with the decisions of this court. Southern Ry. Co. v. Ables, 153 Ala. 523, 45 So. 234; Albes v. Southern R. Co., 164 Ala. 362, 51 So. 327; Hall v. A., B. & A.R.R. Co., 158 Ala. 271, 48 So. 365; Duy v. Ala. Wes. R.R., 175 Ala. 162, 57 So. 724, Ann.Cas.1914C, 1119.
While, as above set forth a legislative sanction of the thing done will prevent it from being a public nuisance and will render it immune from prosecution as such, or from liability to damages resulting therefrom, except for negligence, it cannot escape liability for injuries done to another's property, resulting from the construction or enlargement of its works, etc.
Section 235 of the Constitution says:
In the case of Dallas County v. Dillard, 156 Ala. 354, 47 So. 135, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 884, this court held, following the case of Chester County v. Brower, 117 Pa. 647, 12 Atl.577, 2 Am.St.Rep. 713, that the foregoing section authorized the recovery for consequential damages, in an action on the case, for injuries done another's property by virtue of the construction or enlargement of the ways and works, notwithstanding there was no actual taking of the property and that said section was primarily intended to prevent an exemption from consequential damages when private property was injured without an actual taking. Of course, the condemnation proceeding may have included all damages done to the owner's remaining land, or that would arise from the construction of the works in question; but this would not relieve the complainant from being amenable for injuries as for a diminution in the value of the lands owned by persons who were not parties to the condemnation proceedings.
The result is that: (1) If none of the plaintiffs in the various suits have been damaged in person or property as a proximate result of the creation and maintenance of the conditions complained of, that is, if the complainant's works have made the health and comfort of the plaintiffs no worse than they were before, and have caused no diminution in the value of their lands by making them less comfortable and healthful none of the plaintiffs have a right to recover. (2) If there has been a change in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Finnell v. Pitts, 8 Div. 133.
... 132 So. 2 222 Ala. 290 FINNELL ET AL. v. PITTS. 8 Div. 133. Supreme Court of Alabama May 1, 1930 ... Rehearing ... Granted Oct. 30, 1930 ... Further ... Alabama Western Ry. Co., 175 Ala. 162, 57 So. 724, Ann ... Cas. 1914C, 1119; Hamilton v. Ala. Power Co., 195 ... Ala. 438, 70 So. 737; U.S. v. Grizzard, 219 U.S ... 180, 31 S.Ct ... ...
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Smith
... ... It had a capacity for what is referred ... to as a 10-10 load, and we do not understand that it is ... appellees' contention that the mere operation of the ... plant at full capacity alone and of itself would constitute ... negligence. It would seem that our cases of Hamilton v ... Alabama Power Co., 195 Ala. 438, 70 So. 737, and ... Burnett v. Alabama Power Co., 199 Ala. 337, 74 So ... 459, would be a sufficient answer to any such contention ... True ... the exact provision in the Federal Water Power Act, § 10(c), ... 16 USCA § 803(c), to the ... ...
-
Branyon v. Kirk, 8 Div. 917.
... ... 235, 118 So. 271; ... Mink v. Whitfield, 218 Ala. 334, 118 So. 559; ... Treadaway v. Hamilton, 221 Ala. 479, 129 So. 55; ... Smith v. Cook, 220 Ala. 338, 124 So. 898; Clarke ... v. Earnest, ... Co., 158 Ala. 208, 48 So. 391; ... Hausman v. Brown, 201 Ala. 331, 77 So. 993, 15 ... Alabama Digest, Municipal Corporations, p. 175, + 671 (5) ... We are ... aware of no right of ... 381, 129 So. 50 ... Our ... Constitution and laws impose upon cities the power and duty ... to provide and maintain public streets (Alabama Traction ... Co. v. Selma Tr. & Sav ... ...
-
Rice v. Davidson
... ... by appeal so far as the right and power of the lower court ... was invoked to preserve the status in quo of the parties ... Coxe v ... City Bank & Trust Co., 200 Ala. 440, 76 So. 372, Code, § ... 5358; Hamilton v. Ala. Power Co., 195 Ala. 438, 70 ... So. 737; Dixie Lbr. Co. v. Young, 203 Ala. 115, 82 ... ...