McClure v. State
| Decision Date | 07 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 412 |
| Citation | 17 Ala.App. 618,88 So. 35 |
| Parties | McCLURE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Probate Court, Clarke County; Coma Garrett, Jr., Judge.
Petition by Frank McClure for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain a release from arrest. From an order denying the writ, he appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Q.W Tucker, of Grove Hill, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The appellant was arrested on a charge of violating a rule or regulation promulgated by the court of county commissioners of Clarke county levying a vehicle tax for the privilege of using vehicles on the roads of the county. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the ordinance which he was charged with violating was invalid.
The first contention is that the ordinance was not adopted at a term of the court authorized by law. The minutes of the court show the proper organization of the regular term of the court in February and regular adjournment and organization from time to time, including the term at which the ordinance was adopted. No regular term of the court having intervened, the acts done at the adjourned term are legal. Acts 1919, p. 703; Matkin et al. v. Marengo Co., 137 Ala. 155, 34 So 171; Board, etc., v. Merrill, 193 Ala. 521, 68 So. 971; Hicks v. State, 16 Ala.App. 88, 75 So. 636.
The minutes of the court show a sufficient adoption of the ordinance. It shows the proposal of the ordinance and its adoption by unanimous vote. Minutes of such courts are not required to be kept with the same technical accuracy as are records of courts of general jurisdiction. Adams v. Southern Ry. Co., 9 Ala. App. 201, 62 So. 466.
There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the requirement for the payment of a full year's license for use of vehicles on the roads from the adoption of the ordinance in April until the end of the year. The Legislature may pass laws which may comprehend past transactions when such laws do not impair vested rights or the obligations of contracts. Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lott, 45 Ala. 185.
The ordinance is clear and unambiguous, and similar ordinances have been many times upheld by this court. The Legislature may delegate the power to enact them and it has done so. Acts 1915, p. 573; Windham v. State, 16 Ala.App. 383, 77 So. 963; Foshee v. State, 15 Ala.App. 113, 72 So. 685; Dunlap v. State, 16 Ala.App. 440, 78 So. 638; Mills v. Conecuh Co. (Sup.) 85 So. 564; Posey v. State, 86 So. 117; Strawbridge v. State, 16 Ala.App. 195, 76 So. 479.
The court of county commissioners had no authority to fix the punishment for a violation of the ordinance. This was done by the Legislature, and punishment for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Indus. Relations v. West Boylston Mfg. Co.
...the law levying the tax. Anderson v. City of Birmingham, 205 Ala. 604, 88 So. 900; Citizens' Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lott, 45 Ala. 185; McClure v. State, supra. But Act of June 28, 1943, amending section 204(G), supra, by adding (6-b) provides that 'effective for each twelve-month period beginni......
-
Hill v. Moody
...the Legislature, and the punishment for violation of the ordinance as a crime must be had under the act of the Legislature. McClure v. State (Ala. App.) 88 So. 35. The punishment for such a misdemeanor fixed by Legislature is uniform as to all offenders coming within the class indicated as ......
-
Rountree Farm Co. v. Morgan County
...of the order of condemnation, if indeed such a showing was necessary. See, Dean v. County Board of Education, supra, and McClure v. State, 17 Ala.App. 618, 88 So. 35. Assignments of error 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and relate to the action of the trial court in refusing to give the several ......