Mayor & Town Councilmen of Vinemont v. Allison

• Decision Date: 14 January 1915
• Docket Number: 925
• Parties: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCILMEN OF VINEMONT v. ALLISON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

68 So. 142

191 Ala. 316

MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCILMEN OF VINEMONT v. ALLISON et al.

No. 925

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 14, 1915

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1915

Appeal from Chancery Court, Cullman County; W.H. Simpson, Chancellor.

Suit by W.C. Allison and others against the Mayor and Town Councilmen of Vinemont. From an interlocutory restraining order, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

A.A. Griffith, of Cullman, for appellants.

W.E. Tumlin, of Cullman, for appellees.

McCLELLAN, J.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order restraining officers of the municipality of Vinemont from enforcing the collection of certain taxes claimed as being due the municipality from certain in dividuals, who are complainants in this petition or bill, and commanding the restoration to them of certain personal property. It appears from the petition, or bill, set out in this transcript that the municipality had previously instituted in the chancery court of Cullman county proceedings allowed under the system provided in Code, §§ 1319, 1320, 1322, for the collection of municipal taxes, and that the parties against whom taxes were claimed had filed defenses in the chancery court, as section 1322 contemplates may be done. The causes thus on the chancery docket were regularly continued, because it is asserted the parties had not prepared the causes for submission to the court. After this order of continuance had been entered, the officers of the municipality undertook the enforcement of the asserted tax demands by executions issued under (we assume) Code, §§ 1312, 1313.

According to the applicable principle recognized in Coxe v. Huntsville Gas Co., 129 Ala. 496, 29 So. 867, and Parrish v. Reese, 165 Ala. 638, 51 So. 824, the learned chancellor was entirely correct in directing the issuance of the interlocutory order indicated, to the end that the jurisdiction of his court, already awakened and attached, might be protected in the processes of adjudging the rights of these parties to the original proceeding under Code, § 1322.

The decretal order, awarding the writ here brought under question, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C.J., and SAYRE and DE GRAFFENRIED, JJ., concur.