Matkin v. Marengo County

• Decision Date: 07 April 1903
• Citation: 137 Ala. 155,34 So. 171
• Parties: MATKIN ET AL. v. MARENGO COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

34 So. 171

137 Ala. 155

MATKIN ET AL. v. MARENGO COUNTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 7, 1903

Appeal from Chancery Court, Marengo County; Thos. H. Smith Chancellor.

Suit by Thomas D. Matkin and another against Marengo county and others to enjoin the removal of the county courthouse. From a decree sustaining demurrers to the supplemental bill and dissolving a temporary injunction, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

The bill averred that the court of county commissioners of Marengo county had, for the purpose of erecting a new courthouse thereon, secured a lot outside of the corporate limits of Linden, as such limits existed at the time of the establishment of the county site of Marengo county in said town, and had made a contract with Dodson & Hand to erect such new courthouse. The purpose of the bill was to enjoin the removal of the courthouse of Marengo county from its then present location to the lot so purchased for that purpose and to have delivered up and canceled the contract made by the county commissioners for the erection of said courthouse on said new location, and to have delivered up and canceled the county warrants alleged to have been issued by the court of county commissioners for the purpose of erecting said new courthouse. On the filing of the bill a preliminary injunction was issued. The defendants answered the bill and demurred thereto, and also moved the court to dissolve the temporary injunction upon the denials of the answer and for the want of equity in the bill. On the submission of the cause upon the demurrers and the motion to dissolve the injunction, the chancellor rendered a decree overruling the demurrers and overruling the motion to dissolve the injunction. From this decree the respondents appeal, and assign the rendition thereof as error.

In the Supreme Court the decree of the chancellor was affirmed. Marengo County v. Matkin, 134 Ala. 275, 32 So. 669. After the affirmance of the decree, the complainants filed a supplemental bill, in which they made special reference to the original bill, and averred that the court of county commissioners of Marengo county had rescinded its former action in the selection of the lot described in the original bill for the erection of the courthouse thereon, and had subsequently, by a resolution of said court of county commissioners, procured another lot situated within the limits of the town of Linden, as it existed at the time of its establishment as the county site of Marengo county, and had entered into another contract with Dodson & Hand for the erection of the new courthouse on said lot, and a new courthouse building was being erected upon the lot so selected. The orders and the proceedings of the court of county commissioners in selecting said lot and in making said contract are set forth in the supplemental bill, and it is shown by said orders that they were adopted by the commissioners' court at a meeting of said court held on July 9, 1902. It was averred in said supplemental bill that while the lot which was selected by the court of county commissioners as the lot on which to erect a new courthouse was within the corporate limits of the town of Linden as they existed when Linden was established as the county site of Marengo county, it was a separate and distinct lot from the one upon which the courthouse was located at the time of the filing of the bill; that the warrants which were authorized by the court of county commissioners at their meeting on July 9, 1902, to be issued for the payment of the contractors were not issued or authorized as required by law; that the meeting of the court of county commissioners held on July 19th was a meeting adjourned from the May term of said court that at the May term of said court the matter of purchasing another lot and erecting a new courthouse was adjourned until the June term of the court, and at the June term of the court it was continued until the July term of the court, at which time action was taken thereon. It was further averred in the supplemental bill that no election had been held for the removal of the courthouse from the then present location to the new lot upon which the new courthouse was to be built, as provided by section 41 of the Constitution of 1901, which provided that no courthouse or county site should be removed except by a majority vote of the qualified electors of said county voting at an election held for such purpose; and that, under said section of the Constitution, the court of county commissioners have no right to remove the courthouse from the present site to the lot where it was proposed to build a new courthouse. It was further averred that, since the filing of the original bill, no special taxes have been levied as provided by section 215 of the Constitution of 1901, and no debt has been authorized as provided by section 222 of said Constitution, and no general law has been passed as provided for in said section. It was then averred in the supplemental bill that, except as therein alleged, "the facts upon which the complainants base their rights to relief remain substantially as they were when the original bill was filed."

The prayer of the supplemental bill was that the removal of the courthouse of Marengo county from its present site be enjoined; that the building of the new courthouse upon the lot purchased by the court of county commissioners for that purpose be enjoined; that said contract for the building of a new courthouse be delivered up and canceled; and that the further negotiation, or their use, of warrants authorized to be issued by the order of the court of county commissioners, be enjoined; and there was a prayer for general relief.

The respondents filed a sworn answer, in which they averred that after the affirmance of the decree of the chancellor by the Supreme Court in the original case, they abandoned the purpose of erecting the courthouse on the lot first selected and proposed another lot within the corporate limits of the town of Linden as they existed at the time of the establishment of the county site of Marengo county at Linden, and it was upon this lot, within said corporate limits of Linden, that they proposed to build the new courthouse; that, acting within the power and authority conferred upon them by law, after determining that the old courthouse was not sufficient for the needs of the county, they had entered into another contract for the erection of a new courthouse; that this action was taken at a meeting of the court of county commissioners on July 9, 1902, after a regular adjournment of said court from the May term, 1902, of said court; that said contract had been entered into, and a large part of the work had been done, and a large amount of money had been paid upon said contract. It was then averred in the answer that no election had been held by the qualified voters of Marengo county for the building of a new courthouse, or as to the removal of the said courthouse upon the lot upon which the new courthouse was being built, and that no such election as required under the new Constitution had been held, and that said court of county commissioners has the right to build the new courthouse on the lot which they had acquired for that purpose without holding an election. In said answer, the respondents denied the averments contained in the supplemental bill as to the status of the funds in the county treasury. The respondents demurred to the supplemental bill, and to each separate portion, and the prayer thereof, upon the following grounds: "First. That it appears from the same that the site of the said new courthouse to be built for Marengo county is located within the county seat of Marengo...