Lisenba v. Griffin
Decision Date | 14 May 1942 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 665. |
Parties | LISENBA et al. v. GRIFFIN et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rains & Rains, of Gadsden, for appellants.
Hood Inzer, Martin & Suttle, of Gadsden, for appellees.
This appeal is from a final decree of the circuit court of Etowah County, sitting in equity, declaring void an ordinance of the City of Gadsden creating "A City Barber Board" consisting of three members "all of whom must have followed the occupation of barbering in the City of Gadsden Etowah County, Alabama, for at least three (3) years immediately prior to their appointment." The appointments to be made "from a list of names submitted to said Commission from the Journeymen and Boss Barbers' organizations." The ordinance prescribing and defining the power and jurisdiction of the board. The ordinance was adopted, according to its recitals "pursuant to the application of not less than 70 per cent of the barbers operating in the City of Gadsden."
The bill is filed by appellees, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 156 et seq., against the City of Gadsden, the City Barber Board, and the three individuals constituting the same, and alleges that complainants each own and operate a barber shop in the City of Gadsden; that said ordinance conflicts with the general laws of the State, and that the City Commission of the City of Gadsden was without authority to enact said ordinance, and is in conflict with the Bill of Rights and seeks to deprive complainants of their liberty to work in the prosecution of a private business, to regulate their hours of work and fix the price of their services to their customers.
Said ordinance provides, inter alia:
Said ordinance makes many other provisions regulating sanitation and health, covered by Title 22, §§ 60-71 et seq., Code of 1940.
The ordinance confers on said City Barber Board among others, the following powers and duties:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donoghue v. Bunkley
... ... 248; Klein v. Jefferson Bldg. & Loan ... Ass'n, 239 Ala. 460, 195 So. 593; Thompson v. Chilton ... County, 236 Ala. 142, 181 So. 701; Lisenba v ... Griffin, 242 Ala. 679, 8 So.2d 175 ... Following ... this line of reasoning, we have considered this form of ... remedy as ... ...
-
State v. Polakow's Realty Experts
... ... to its constitutionality. Then it is a question for judicial ... determination. Lisenba et al. v. Griffin et al., 242 ... Ala. 679, 8 So.2d 175; Tyson & Bro. United Theatre Ticket ... Offices, Inc. v. Banton, District Attorney, et ... ...
-
USA Oil Corp. v. City of Lipscomb
...any person from allowing any obstruction on his premises whereby free drainage of surface water was prevented. In Lisenba v. Griffin, 242 Ala. 679, 8 So.2d 175, this court affirmed a judgment holding invalid a city ordinance creating a city barber board and regulating barber On the authorit......
-
Simonetti, Inc. v. State ex rel. Gallion, 6 Div. 415
...perhaps, recognizing the divergence in the 'public interest' concepts exemplified in the McDowell and Olsen cases. 'In Lisenba vs. Griffin, 242 Ala. 679, 8 So.2d 175, the Supreme Court held that a municipal ordinance authorizing a board to fix minimum prices for the services of barbers was ......