Harris v. Barrett
Decision Date | 02 June 1921 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 988 |
Citation | 89 So. 717,206 Ala. 263 |
Parties | HARRIS v. BARRETT et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 28, 1921
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.
Bill by George C. Harris against N.A. Barrett and others, as Commissioners of the City of Birmingham and the Chief of Police, to enjoin the enforcement of a certain ordinance. From a decree sustaining demurrers to the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Wood & Pritchard, of Birmingham, and J.J. Mayfield, of Montgomery for appellant.
Fred G Moore and Jere C. King, both of Birmingham, for appellees.
The bill was to restrain the city commissioners and chief of police of Birmingham from enforcing an ordinance in regard to moving personal property.
This is not a moot case as is suggested by appellant's counsel, since liability on the injunction is dependent on the successful prosecution of the appeal.
It is insisted that the primary purpose of the bill is that the daily reports required by a void ordinance of those moving certain personal property, as applied to the corporation of which complainant is the president and general manager, in the due operation of its transfer business, impaired complainant's right of property in that it would require large expenditures of money and unnecessary delays to comply with the ordinance which amounted to an unwarranted invasion and destruction of his property rights. Comm. of Mobile v. Orr, 181 Ala. 308, 61 So. 920, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 575; Hill v. Cameron, 194 Ala. 376, 69 So. 636; Ward v. Markstein, 196 Ala. 209, 72 So. 41; Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 81, 66 So. 657; Ex parte State ex rel. Martin, 200 Ala. 15, 75 So. 327; Renfroe v. Collins & Co., 201 Ala. 489, 78 So. 395; City of Montgomery v. Orpheum Taxi Co., 203 Ala. 103, 82 So. 117; 5 Pom.Eq.Jur. § 354.
In this jurisdiction we have adhered to the rule that equity will not interfere with the enforcement of criminal law or check the activities of prosecuting officials when the injury inflicted or threatened is merely the vexation of arrest and punishment of complainant--leaving such complainant free to litigate the question of unconstitutionality of the statute or ordinance, construction or application thereof, in the defense at the trial for its violation. Burnett v. Craig, 30 Ala. 135, 68 Am.Dec. 115; Ex parte State ex rel. Martin, supra. See, also, Brown v. Birmingham, 140 Ala. 590, 37 So. 173; Old Dom. Tel. Co. v. Powers, 140 Ala. 220, 37 So. 195, 1 Ann.Cas. 119; Pike Co. Dispensary v. Brundidge, 130 Ala. 193, 30 So. 451; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Montgomery, 193 Ala. 234, 69 So. 428, Ann.Cas.1918B, 554.
However, in a proper case and where required to prevent irreparable injury, property right may be asserted and protected within the exception to the rule recognized in Mobile v. Orr. 181 Ala. 308, 61 So. 920, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 575, and authorities there collected.
The sufficiency of the instant bill was challenged by the general demurrer, and sustained by the trial court. All amendable defects being treated as made, no reversible error was committed, if it be conceded (without deciding that the ordinance was an excess of the exercise of the police powers of the city) that the ordinance was unconstitutional and void. No such property rights are destroyed or impaired, as shown by the averments of the bill, as to bring it within the exception to the general rule to which we have adverted.
According to the allegations of the bill, appellant is the president, majority stockholder, and active officer or agent of the Harris Transfer & Warehouse Company, a corporation authorized to conduct a transfer business in the city of Birmingham. The prosecutions initiated and threatened, as in the bill averred, were against said Harris for the violation of the ordinance, by virtue of the fact that he was the executive head or agent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy
...308, 61 So. 920, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575, and applied in Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 81, 66 So. 657. Harris v. Barrett, 206 Ala. 263, 89 So. 717. So of federal cases Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223, 25 S.Ct. 18, 49 L.Ed. 169; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. ......
-
State v. Goldstein
...Brooken, supra; Davis v. State, supra; Mangan v. State, supra; Mobile v. Orr, 181 Ala. 308, 61 So. 920, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 575; Harris v. Barrett, 89 So. 717; State ex Black v. Delaye, 193 Ala. 500, 68 So. 993, L. R. A. 1915E, 640. Out of the mass of decisions it has been defined and decla......
-
Rice v. Davidson
...37 So. 173; Wilson v. Meyer, 144 Ala. 402; 39 So. 317; Comm. of Mobile v. Orr, 181 Ala. 308, 61 So. 920, 45 L.R.A.[ N.S.] 575; Harris v. Barrett, 89 So. 717); (4) destruction of the use of his dwelling as a home, as by continuous blasting and throwing of rocks upon his residence and grounds......
-
Ex parte Smith
...40, 85 So. 564; McLendon v. Boyles Transit Co., 210 Ala. 529, 98 So. 581; Giglio v. Barrett, 207 Ala. 278, 92 So. 668; Harris v. Barrett, 206 Ala. 263, 89 So. 717; of Montgomery v. Orpheum Taxi Co., 203 Ala. 103, 82 So. 117); and may exercise judgment and discretion in the building, protect......