Joiner v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1936
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 209
• Citation: 168 So. 885,232 Ala. 522
• Parties: JOINER et ux. v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

168 So. 885

232 Ala. 522

JOINER et ux. v. STATE.

5 Div. 209

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1936

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coosa County; W.W. Wallace, Judge.

Bill for injunction by the State of Alabama against Charlie Joiner and Mrs. Charlie Joiner. From a decree for complainant respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

Pruet &amp Glass, of Ashland, for appellants.

A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

KNIGHT Justice.

Bill to abate a liquor nuisance, filed under the provisions of section 4671 et seq. and related sections 9290 and 9291 of the Code.

In our recent case of Ex parte Hill, 229 Ala. 501, 158 So. 531, it was held that the padlock provisions of section 9290 and the bond authorized by section 9291 of the Code are within the "general broad terms" of those applicable to liquor nuisances.

Section 4675 of the Code provides: "The owner of and all persons interested in the building or premises where the nuisance exists, or any agent renting the same, as well as the keeper thereof, may be joined with the keeper as parties defendant to the proceedings, and all such owners, keepers, parties interested or agents who may be found to have knowingly assented to the keeping or maintaining of such nuisance on the premises at any time within six months prior to the commencement of the suit, and their servants, lessees, and tenants shall be perpetually enjoined from maintaining and keeping, or suffering to be kept and maintained such nuisance, or any liquor nuisance, upon the said premises."

By section 4676 of the Code is also provided: "The court shall have full power and authority to maintain its jurisdiction and by all suitable orders and writs to enforce its decrees in respect to the subject matter of the suit, and to so shape and mould its decrees as to accomplish the purpose of the bill; and all the rules of evidence, practice and procedure, except as otherwise herein provided, that pertain to courts of equity generally, or that exist by virtue of any law of this state, may be invoked and applied in any such injunction proceeding instituted hereunder."

No question is here argued as to the sufficiency of the bill to invoke the jurisdiction of the court to abate the alleged nuisance.

All assignments of error are made jointly by the appellants, and to be availing for a reversal of the cause the error or errors must be alike injurious to both appellants. Hammock et al. v. Oakley, 228 Ala. 588, 154 So. 906; Bank of Cottonwood et al. v. Hood, 227 Ala. 237, 149 So. 676.

The evidence in the case was given ore tenus before the court.

Upon final submission the court granted the relief prayed, and perpetually enjoined the respondents, separately and severally, "from the unlawful sale, offering for sale, keeping for sale, or possessing upon the premises described in the bill of complaint prohibited liquors and beverages as defined and provided by the laws of the State of Alabama," and from "permitting liquors to be sold or drunk on said premises." The decree further required the respondents to make and execute bond in the sum of $750, payable to the state of Alabama, conditioned upon the strict observance of the decree, and in the event the bond was not given the sheriff was ordered and directed to take charge of the property described in the decree and "padlock the same."

From this decree the appeal is prosecuted by both respondents.

The evidence was without conflict as to the joint ownership of the property by the respondents, husband and wife, and that it consisted of an acre of land near Goodwater, in Coosa county, on the west side of a public road; that upon this land there was a building, with five rooms; the room to the front "constituted a store and eating joint"; that some 75 to 100 feet from the main building are two "small houses built upon posts or trees several feet off the ground, which are connected with the main building by plank gang ways."

There was ample evidence in the case to support the finding that this place was used for the purpose of selling and storing prohibited liquors throughout the entire year 1934. The evidence not only warranted a finding that while the respondents were operating this place, during 1934, liquor was sold by them, through their servants and employees, in and about the building, but also to show that this illegal liquor traffic continued there during the time the property was under a lease or rental contract to others, if it was ever in fact under such lease or rental contract, and that this illegal use of the property was with the knowledge, assent, and connivance of the defendants, one or both.

If the tenants were guilty of maintaining the liquor nuisance on the rented premises to the knowledge, and with the assent and acquiescence, of the landlords, which the court, under the evidence, was...