Louisville & N. R. Co. v. City of Bessemer

Decision Date07 January 1896
Citation18 So. 880,108 Ala. 238
CourtAlabama Supreme Court
PartiesLOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. CITY OF BESSEMER.

Appeal from chancery court, Jefferson county; Thomas Cobbs Chancellor.

Bill by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company against the city of Bessemer. From a decree dissolving a temporary injunction complainant appeals. Reversed.

The bill in this case prayed to have the city of Bessemer restrained from the enforcement of an ordinance passed by the council of the said city requiring the complainant to light a certain portion of its road. The bill averred that the complainant was a railroad corporation, operating a railroad through Jefferson county, called and known as the "Birmingham Mineral Railroad," and that the line of said road ran through the city of Bessemer, along and across Third avenue in said city, and between Twentieth and Twenty-First streets; that on April 2, 1895, the city of Bessemer enacted an ordinance to compel railroad companies to light their crossings at certain points in the said city of Bessemer. This ordinance was set out at length in the bill. The provisions of it which have reference to the complaint and are pertinent to the issues in the present case are as follows: In the first section it was ordained that the Louisville & Nashville Railroad company, operating the Birmingham Mineral Railroad, in the city of Bessemer "be, and the same are hereby, required by the council of the said city to put, place, keep, and maintain an electric are light of sufficient power and brilliancy, to be determined by said city, to light up their tracks and crossings in said city of Bessemer, where their said tracks cross said Third avenue between Twentieth and Twenty-First streets in said city, during the hours of nighttime, while any one, either, or all of them are switching or engaged in switching cars, or moving trains on or across said Third avenue." The fourth section of the said ordinance is as follows: "Sec. 4. That any switching cars or moving trains during the hours of night time on or across said Third avenue or said Twentieth street by either, any, or all of said railroad companies, or by any one for them, without first having said crossings or tracks lighted up as required by the provisions of section 1 of this ordinance, shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance, and the party or parties convicted thereof shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars, and in default of payment of the fine may be sentenced for hard labor for the city for not more than 60 days for each offense." The bill further averred that the city of Bessemer had caused to be arrested, for the violation of the ordinance, one J. G. Hardy, who was a locomotive engineer in the employment of the complainant, on the specific charge that said Hardy, as such engineer switched cars during the nighttime across Third avenue in the city of Bessemer without complainant first having lighted said crossing, as required by the ordinance; and that the city of Bessemer had notified and warned the defendant that it would arrest its employés every night for so violating said ordinance. The ground upon which relief was sought was that the ordinance was unreasonable; and the way in which the ordinance and its enforcement were unreasonable, as averred in the bill, is sufficiently stated in the opinion. The bill further avers "that complainant files this bill of complaint for the purpose of restraining and enjoining said city of Bessemer from arresting the employés of complainant interrupting complainant's business, or otherwise interfering with the same, under and in carrying out said ordinance; and complainant further alleges that there will be multiplicity of arrests of the complainant's employés made by the said city of Bessemer, and a multiplicity of trials, which will entail great trouble and expense on complainant and the county of Jefferson, state of Alabama unless your honor grants complainant an injunction restraining and enjoining said city of Bessemer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Moore v. Pettus, 3 Div. 649
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 21, 1954
    ...as averments of fact and in the absence of objection by demurrer they will support the equity of the bill. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. City of Bessemer, 108 Ala. 238, 18 So. 880. The finding of the trial court that complainants suffered a special damage sufficient to maintain this suit is sup......
  • Thompson v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 14, 1918
    ...... to the circuit court. Ex parte City Bank & Trust Co., 76 So. 372. The latter court was clothed with the power either to. set aside a ...Lee, 74 So. 243. All amendable defects are regarded as amended. L. &. N.R.R. Co. v. Bessemer, 108 Ala. 238, 18 So. 880. In the. recent case of Tidwell v. Hitt Lumber Company, 73. So. 486, ......
  • D. B. Clayton and Associates v. McNaughton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 6, 1966
    ...only on a want of equity in the bill. Burch v. Burch, 231 Ala. 464, 165 So. 387. And as stated in Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co. v. City of Bessemer, 108 Ala. 238, 18 So. 880: 'The dissolution of an injunction will be allowed only upon the want of equity in the bill, or the denials of a......
  • Montgomery Light & Water Power Co. v. Citizens' Light, Heat & Power Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 9, 1905
    ......Supreme Court of AlabamaFebruary 9, 1905 . Appeal. from City Court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge. . . Suit by. the Montgomery Light & Water ... be dissolved. Hays v. Ahlrichs, supra; L. & N. R. Co. v. Bessemer, 108 Ala. 239, 249, 18 So. 880; Hartley v. Matthews, 96 Ala. 224, 11 So. 452; Jackson v. Jackson, ......
  • 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