Hays v. Alrichs

Decision Date26 May 1897
Citation22 So. 465,115 Ala. 239
PartiesHAYS, JUDGE, ET AL. v. ALRICHS ET AL. [1]
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from chancery court, Cullman county; William H. Simpson Chancellor.

Bill by A. B. Hays, as judge of probate of Cullman county, P. H Kinney, S. M. Rudder, and other resident citizens and taxpayers of said county, against Alvin Alrichs, W. A Schlosser, C. B. Wilhite, P. W. Wiley, and T. J. Tingle, for injunction. From a decree for defendants, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

The bill, as originally filed, was in words and figures as follows: "First. That heretofore, to wit, on or before the 13th day of November, 1896, the respondents, except Alvin Alrichs, undertook to make a contract with the said Alvin Alrichs for the erection of a vault in one of the rooms of the courthouse of Cullman county, Alabama, at the price of $2,200,-the county to build, in addition, the foundation to said vault; and complainants allege that said contract, as they are informed and believe, is void, and that said persons had no authority, in law or fact, to make said contract. And complainants further allege, upon information and belief that said contract was made outside of any regular term of court, and not during the action of said court as a commissioners' court of Cullman county, in session, and without authority of law. Complainants attach hereto, as a part of this bill, which is hereby referred to and made a part of this bill of complaint, Exhibits A and B, which show the orders of said court, purporting to act as commissioners of Cullman county, except the specifications of said vault which said specifications are not signed by any one, and do not show any contract between the commissioners' court of Cullman county and said Alvin Alrichs. Second. Complainants further allege that Exhibit B, hereto attached, purports to set out a contract made between the commissioners' court of Cullman county, Alabama, and said Alrichs, for the erection of said vault according to plans and specifications recorded at said special term of said court on the 1st day of December, 1896; and complainants allege that said persons, as members of the commissioners' court of Cullman county Alabama, had no authority of law to make said contract at said time and place, as said special term of court was not held according to law,-no notice having been given for ten days as required by law, and no reason existing for the calling of said court, as required by law, and no authority given to said persons to transact the business attempted to be transacted by them at said term. Third. Complainants further allege that said vault proposed to be built will not be safe or convenient for the keeping of the records of Cullman county, Alabama, and that said vault, or a much better vault, can be built for a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars less than is proposed to be given for the erection of the same. Fourth. Complainants further allege that by the erection of said vault according to the plans and specifications, and as is attempted to be erected, the courthouse of Cullman county will be weakened, its strength impaired, and its convenience destroyed, to a very great extent, and that said building will be weakened to such an extent that it will be unsafe for occupancy and use for a courthouse for said county. And complainants further allege that said attempted contract was made in face of an act of the legislature requiring all such contracts to be made with the lowest bidder, after due notice given, in order that there might be competition between bidders to the benefit of the county, which said act had been introduced in the legislature of Alabama before said attempted contracts were attempted to be made by said commissioners, or persons attempting to act as commissioners. Fifth. Complainants further allege, upon information and belief, that said contract or agreement was made by collusion or agreement between said Alrichs and his co-respondents, or some of them, in order to give said Alrichs an undue advantage in the erection of the vault over any other persons, to the great damage and injury of the county, and that the appropriation which will be required to be made in payment of the erection of said vault, and expenses incident thereto, will be a misappropriation of the funds of the county, and unnecessarily increase the burden of taxation to the people of the county and taxpayers of the county. Sixth. Complainants further allege that no bond was required from said Alrichs or other person for the erection of said vault, and that said proposed contracts are contrary to public policy and public interest to the county, and to the safety and convenience of the courthouse of said county, and not to the interest of the county or the taxpayers thereof. Seventh. Complainants allege, upon information and belief, that said purported contracts were made by collusion between said Alrichs and his co-respondent W. A. Schlosser, who, while acting or attempting to act in the capacity of a commissioner of Cullman county, Alabama, was interested in said contract to such an extent, at least, that he influenced the other commissioners of said county to make said attempted contract, against the interests of the county. And complainants further allege that, judging from the action of the commissioners herein referred to, they are incompetent, not possessing the business qualification and discretion necessary to fully represent the interests of the county in important transactions involved in the prosperity of the county. Eighth. Complainants further allege that said W. A. Schlosser, Alvin Alrichs, their servants, agents, or employés, are now proceeding to erect said vault, and are tearing down, defacing, destroying, ruining, and injuring one of the rooms of said courthouse, and contemplate the destruction of others; and complainants allege that, under the proceedings attempted to authorize said destruction, they are trespassing upon said courthouse building, and the occupancy of the officers of the county occupying rooms in said courthouse, to the great damage and injury of said building and said county. Ninth. Complainants further allege that the persons hereinbefore named as commissioners of Cullman county are weak and inexperienced persons, not familiar with the business or character or cost of vaults, and that they were imposed upon by false and fraudulent representations made to them by Alvin Alrichs and W. A. Schlosser, who is the contractor and carpenter, as to the character, quality, and cost of the material of said vault, and that three commissioners, other than said Schlosser, relied upon him explicitly, and the statements of said Alrichs as to the cost and character of said vault and the material thereof. And complainants allege, upon information and belief, that eight hundred dollars would be a big price for the erection of said vault, in the event no damage is done to the courthouse by the erection of the same." The prayer of the bill was "that a temporary injunction issue,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Board of Revenue of Covington County v. Merrill
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1915
    ...from fraud, corruption, or unfair dealing, cannot be controlled or reviewed by any other court. Matkin v. Marengo County, supra; Hays v. Ahlrichs, supra; Commissioners' Court v. Hearne, 59 Ala. Askew v. Hale Co., 54 Ala. 639, 25 Am.Rep. 730; Parnell v. Commissioners' Court, 34 Ala. 278; Com......
  • O'Rear v. Sartain
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1915
    ...Merrill, 68 So. 971; Long et al. v. Shepherd, 159 Ala. 598, 48 So. 675; Matkin v. Marengo County, 137 Ala. 155, 34 So. 171; Hays v. Ahlrichs, 115 Ala. 239, 22 So. 465; Talley v. Jackson Co., 175 Ala. 649, 39 So. The decree of the Walker law and equity court, sitting in equity, dissolving th......
  • Cameron v. Earnest, 8540.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 5, 1930
    ...503, 36 N. E. 141, 22 L. R. A. 515; In re First Nat. Bank of Hillsboro, 25 N. D. 635, 146 N. W. 1064, L. R. A. 1915C, 386; Hays v. Ahlrichs, 115 Ala. 239, 22 So. 465; Lancaster County v. Lincoln Auditorium Ass'n, 87 Neb. 87, 127 N. W. There are no facts stated by which the court can determi......
  • Terrell v. Marion County
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1948
    ... ... Revenue of Covington County v. Merrill, 193 Ala ... 521, 68 So. 971; Matkin v. Marengo County, 137 Ala ... 155, 34 So. 171; Hays v. Ahlrichs, 115 Ala. 239, 22 ... So. 465; Talley v. Commissioners' Court of Jackson ... County, 175 Ala. 644, 39 So. 167; Town of Eutaw v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT