Masonry Arts, Inc. v. Mobile County Com'n
| Decision Date | 30 July 1993 |
| Citation | 628 So.2d 334 |
| Parties | MASONRY ARTS, INC. v. The MOBILE COUNTY COMMISSION and Harmon Contract W.S.A., Inc. 1911964. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Edward P. Meyerson and Hub Harrington of Najjar Denaburg, P.C., Birmingham; and Peter S. Mackey of Burns, Cunningham & Mackey, Mobile, for appellant.
Lawrence M. Wettermark of Collins, Galloway & Smith, Mobile, for Mobile County Commission.
Larry U. Sims and Joseph P.H. Babington of Helmsing, Lyons, Sims & Leach, P.C., Mobile, for Harmon Contract W.S.A., Inc.
This appeal arises from the trial court's refusal to enjoin the Mobile County Commission from awarding a public works contract to Harmon Contract W.S.A., Inc. Masonry Arts, Inc., according to its complaint, "[brought] this action to enjoin the letting or execution of the curtainwall contract as a citizen of the State of Alabama pursuant to § 39-5-5 of the Code of Alabama (1975), and as a bona fide unsuccessful bidder pursuant to § 41-16-61 of the Code of Alabama (1975)." After a hearing at which it heard oral testimony, the trial court specifically found that the defendants had not violated the Alabama Competitive Bid Law (§ 41-16-27, Ala.Code 1975) and that Masonry Arts was not entitled to the injunctive relief sought. After the trial court's decision, the County executed the contract and Harmon began performance.
Masonry Arts filed a notice of appeal with this Court; however, it did not request a stay of execution of the trial court's order pending appeal. The County and Harmon argue that, because the contract has been awarded and executed, the appeal is moot. We agree; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
The sole relief sought by Masonry Arts was an injunction against the County and Harmon to prevent the execution of the contract. After the trial court held that the County had not violated the competitive bid law in awarding the contract to Harmon and denied the request for a permanent injunction against the execution of the contract, the County and Harmon executed the contract and Harmon began work. The trial court's order was not superseded by the appeal, because Masonry Arts did not seek a stay of the trial court's judgment pending appeal. See Rule 8, Ala.R.App.P.
The action is moot because the trial court is no longer capable of granting the injunction requested by Masonry Arts. See Morrison v. Mullins, 275 Ala. 258, 259, 154 So.2d 16, 18 (1963) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richards v. Baum
...appellant failed to obtain a stay and the requested relief was subsequently rendered impossible. See, e.g., Masonry Arts, Inc. v. Mobile County Comm'n, 628 So.2d 334, 335 (Ala.1993) (public contract awarded and executed); Jones v. Matthis, 89 Ill.App.3d 929, 45 Ill.Dec. 298, 300, 412 N.E.2d......
-
Swindle v. Remington
...occurring after the denial of the injunction renders the appeal moot.’ 893 So.2d at 330. Similarly, in Masonry Arts, Inc. v. Mobile County Commission, 628 So.2d 334 (Ala. 1993), this Court dismissed an appeal as moot based on the award of a contract after the entry of the order being appeal......
-
S. Ala. Gas Dist. v. Knight
...event occurring after the denial of the injunction renders the appeal moot.” 893 So.2d at 330. Similarly, in Masonry Arts, Inc. v. Mobile County Commission, 628 So.2d 334 (Ala.1993), this Court dismissed an appeal as moot based on the award of a contract after the entry of the order being a......
-
Thompson v. Smith, Civ.A. 97-A-715-E.
...and thus that judgment is still valid. See, e.g., Gross v. QMS, Inc., 669 So.2d 839, 840 (Ala.1995); Masonry Arts, Inc. v. Mobile County Comm'n, 628 So.2d 334, 335 (Ala. 1993); Arrington v. State ex rel. Parsons, 422 So.2d 759, 760 (Ala.1982). It is also undisputed that the second requireme......