Little v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1903 |
| Parties | LITTLE ET AL. v. STATE EX REL. HUEY ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; B. C. Jones, Judge.
Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of T. T. Huey and others, against E. A. Little and others. Judgment for relators. Respondents appeal. Affirmed.
This was a quo warranto proceeding, instituted by the state, on the relation of T. T. Huey and others, the appellees, against the appellants. It was averred in the petition that the relators were duly and regularly elected a board of mayor and aldermen for the city of Bessemer on September 8, 1901; that they immediately thereafter duly and regularly qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties of said office; that under the charter of the city of Bessemer, the board of mayor and aldermen of said city had the sole and exclusive power to appoint a chief of police and such other police officers and patrolmen as from time to time they might deem necessary for the proper protection of said city, and to make such rules and regulations for their government, fix their salaries etc., and that under this power they had done so; that on March 17, 1903, the Governor of the state had appointed the respondents as a board of police commissioners; that these appointments had been made under and by virtue of the act of the Legislature approved March 3, 1903; that under such appointment the respondents claim to be clothed with exclusive right and power to appoint the chief of police and other police officers and patrolmen of the city of Bessemer and had organized as directed under said act, and were proceeding in usurping the power vested in the board of mayor and aldermen of the city under its charter, so far as such charter provided for the appointment of the police officers by the board of mayor and aldermen of the city of Bessemer that said respondents had made appointments, and that said appointments were void, and that the Governor was without authority or legal power to appoint the respondents as police commissioners of the city of Bessemer. The prayer of the petition was that the respondents be declared guilty of usurping the functions and duties of the city of Bessemer, or of the mayor and board of aldermen of said city, as conferred by its charter, and that it be adjudged that the respondents be excluded from the exercise of such powers, offices, and privileges, and from the management, control, and regulation of the police of said city. The respondents filed an answer to the petition, in which they admitted the averments thereof so far as they relate to the election by the relators as the board of mayor and aldermen of the city of Bessemer, and the appointment of the respondents as police commissioners. In their answer the respondents denied that they usurped, intruded in, or were unlawfully holding, any of the powers, privileges, or fran-chises which were conferred upon the board of mayor and aldermen of the city of Bessemer by its charter, and they further averred that they were duly and legally appointed a board of police commissioners for the city of Bessemer under and by virtue of an act of the Legislature approved March 3, 1903, and they averred that such appointment was legal, and authorized by said act, which act was entitled "An act to establish a board of police commissioners for the city of Bessemer, Alabama, to provide for the appointment of such commissioners, to define their powers and duties and to regulate the police department of said city." The relators demurred to this answer upon various grounds, in which they set up that the act of the Legislature approved March 3, 1903, was unconstitutional and void, in that it was in violation of section 45 of the Constitution of the state of Alabama, and was in violation of subdivision 18 of section 104 of the Constitution of 1901, by reason of its amending, altering, or extending the charter of the city of Bessemer, said act being a local act, and that it was in violation of sections 105, 106, and 229 of the Constitution of 1901. The court sustained the demurrer of the relators to the answer, and, the respondents declining to plead further, judgment was rendered granting the relief prayed for in the petition, and ordering that the respondents be excluded from the office of police commissioners of the city of Bessemer. From this judgment the respondents appeal, and assign as error the court's sustaining the demurrer to the respondents' answer, and the rendition of judgment excluding the respondents from the office of police commissioners.
D. Godfrey, and Bowman, Horsh & Beddow, for appellants.
W. F. Porter, for appellees.
The charter of the city of Bessemer (Acts 1900-1901, p. 444), section 29, p. 468, prescribes the powers of the mayor and aldermen of the city, and in the 10th specification of powers, bestows on them the authority "to appoint and regulate day and night watchmen, police patrol and captain thereof, and to maintain a police force consisting of such officers and patrolmen, and under such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary."
The Legislature, on the 3d March, 1903, passed an act entitled "An act to establish a board of police commissioners of the city of Bessemer, Alabama; to provide for the appointment of such commissioners; to define their powers and duties and to regulate the police department of said city."
The first section of the act, provides for the appointment immediately after its passage and approval by the Governor of a board of commissioners of police of the city, consisting of five members, prescribing their terms of office, etc. The second section prescribes the oath to be taken by each member of the board, etc. The third, "That said board of commissioners of police * * * shall have the sole and exclusive power, and it shall be their duty, as soon as they are appointed and qualified, to appoint a chief of police, and such other officers and patrolmen as they may from time to time deem necessary for the proper protection of the city;" that they shall elect one of their number as president, keep records and require one of them to act as clerk or secretary; that they shall hold monthly meetings and such other meetings as the interest of the city from time to time requires, giving the board full and exclusive control and direction of the officers and members of the police force; to prescribe the salaries of the police officers and patrolmen, not to be increased during the terms of said officers, and to issue warrants monthly upon the treasurer or disbursing officer of said city for the payment of the police department. The fourth section fixes the term of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sentner
...“change.” It has been legally defined as implying both the lessening of evil and the increasing of good (Little v. State ex rel. Huey, 137 Ala. 659, 35 So. 134, 136); to correct, to make new, to rectify. McCorquodale v. State of Texas, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 344, 98 S.W. 879;Id., 211 U.S. 432, 435, 2......
-
State v. Sentner
... ... Steinberger, the ... chief steward, that if the cut was not accepted he would fire ... every man, and later on being told that the cut would not be ... accepted, he told the men to leave the plant. They left about ... 10:30 o'clock in the forenoon, and a little later picket ... lines were formed. One at the street approaching the north ... gate of the plant and office building, and the other at the ... south gate. Mr. Taylor guessed that the most he saw in the ... picket lines that afternoon were 25 or 50 men at each place ... The stewards of the ... ...
-
Johnson v. State ex rel. City of Birmingham
... ... Hubbard, 148 Ala. 391, 41 ... So. 903; Yielding v. State ex rel. Wilkinson, 232 ... Ala. 292, 167 So. 580; Robinson v. Ensley, Ala.Sup., ... 52 So. 69; Houston County v. Covington et al., 233 ... Ala. 606, 172 So. 882; City Council of Montgomery v ... Reese, 149 Ala. 188, 43 So. 116; Little v. State ex ... rel. Huey et al., 137 Ala. 659, 35 So. 134; State ex ... rel. Bates v. Baumhauer, 239 Ala. 476, 195 So. 869; ... Skinner's Alabama Constitution, Annotated, pp. 480-481 ... Section 105 of the Constitution is not construed to inhibit ... local legislation on a ... ...
-
Dunn v. Dean
...therefore, that we are constrained to hold the act of September 26, 1903, to be unconstitutional and void." In Little v. State, 137 Ala. 659, 668, 35 So. 134, 136, it was said with reference to section 105, among others in the opinion: "This view is emphasized, re-enforced, and made certain......