Kearley v. State, 1 Div. 696.
| Decision Date | 06 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 696. |
| Parties | KEARLEY v. STATE EX REL. HAMILTON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; J. Blocker Thornton, Judge.
Quo warranto proceeding by the State of Alabama, on the relation of J. G. Hamilton, against Arthur J. Kearley. From a judgment for relator, respondent appeals.
Affirmed.
Lyons, Chamberlain & Courtney, of Mobile, for appellant.
T. M. Stevens, Wm. G. Caffey, S. M. Johnston, Benj. F. McMillan, Jr., and Alex. T. Howard, all of Mobile, for appellee.
The parties have urged immediate decision of this case because of a pending election, and we merely state our conclusion that the act originating in House Bill 1032, entitled "An Act To create a Court of Domestic Relations in lieu of Juvenile Courts in all counties in the State of Alabama, now having, or which may hereafter have, a population of not less than 105,000 nor more than 300,000, according to the last or any succeeding Federal Census," etc., is a local law within the meaning of section 110 of the Constitution 1901, and that section 106 of the Constitution 1901 was violated in its passage.
The attempted classification, when the whole act is considered, is so restrictive as to designate, rather than classify, limiting the operation of the act, present and future, to the county of Mobile, and, under the repeated rulings of this court, such classification cannot be sustained. Mobile County v. Byrne, 218 Ala. 5 117 So. 83; State v. Gullatt, 210 Ala. 452, 98 So. 373; In re Opinion of the Justices, 216 Ala. 469, 113 So. 584; State v. Grayson, 220 Ala. 12, 123 So. 573; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Harry, 215 Ala. 458, 111 So. 41.
The judgment here is that the circuit court did not err in sustaining the demurrers to the answer of respondent, or in rendering a judgment of ouster, and that the same should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except SAYRE, J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jefferson County v. Busby
...148 So. 411 226 Ala. 293 JEFFERSON COUNTY v. BUSBY. 6 Div. 369.Supreme Court of AlabamaJanuary 27, 1933 ... bailiffs in all Circuit Courts in all counties of the State ... of Alabama having a population of 200,000, or more, ... (1) It ... is presumed that a statute is valid, and, unless ... 465; Ward v. State ex rel. Lea, supra; Kearley v. State ... ex rel. Hamilton, 223 Ala. 548, 137 So. 424; ... ...
-
Donoghue v. Bunkley
...224 Ala. 242, 139 So. 416; Brandon v. Chambers, 229 Ala. 327, 157 So. 235; Moses v. Tigner, 229 Ala. 645, 159 So. 258; Kearley v. State, 223 Ala. 548, 137 So. 424; Henry v. Wilson, 224 Ala. 261, 139 So. For the reasons above noted we concur in the conclusion of the writer of the opinion tha......
-
Brandon v. State
... 173 So. 240 27 Ala.App. 321 BRANDON v. STATE. 6 Div. 757 Court of Appeals of Alabama March 17, 1936 ... Rehearing ... v ... Harry, 215 Ala. 458, 111 So. 41; Kearley v. State ex ... rel. Hamilton [223 Ala. 548] 137. So. 424.' ... 265, 68 So. 500; ... Stoudenmire v. Harper, 81 Ala. 242, 1 So. 857; ... Bates v. Preble, 151 U.S. 149, 14 S.Ct. 277, 38 ... L.Ed ... ...
-
Ward v. State
...212 Ala. 258, 102 So. 222; State v. Weakley, 153 Ala. 648, 45 So. 175; Mobile County v. Byrne, 218 Ala. 5, 117 So. 83; Kearley v. Hamilton (Ala. Sup.) 137 So. 424. In application of these principles this court has recognized the rule that it is our duty to not construe a law as local when i......