Montiel v. Holcombe
| Decision Date | 19 December 1940 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 119. |
| Citation | 199 So. 245,240 Ala. 352 |
| Parties | MONTIEL v. HOLCOMBE, SHERIFF, ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; J. Blocker Thornton Judge.
Bill by Ricardo Montiel against W. H. Holcombe, as sheriff of Mobile County, and Bart B. Chamberlain, as Solicitor of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, to enjoin prosecution of complainant under an indictment. From a decree granting respondents' motion to strike the bill and dismissing the cause, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Sullivan Holberg & Tully, of Mobile, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Bill by complainant, appellant here, to restrain and enjoin W. H Holcombe, as Sheriff of Mobile County, and Bart B. Chamberlain, as Solicitor of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, from the prosecution of appellant under an indictment, presented by the Grand Jury of said county against him, at the January Term, 1940, of the Circuit Court of Mobile County.
Upon the filing of the bill, the said sheriff and solicitor appeared in court and moved to strike the bill of complaint upon numerous grounds, among others, that the suit was one essentially against the state, in that it is brought against the named officers whose official duties required them to perform the acts which the bill sought to enjoin, and because the court was without jurisdiction to enjoin the prosecution of appellant under said indictment by the state acting through its legal and duly constituted officers.
The bill shows that the appellant was arrested, and subsequently indicted by the Grand Jury of Mobile County, charged with the criminal offense of "setting up or carrying on, or being concerned in setting up or carrying on a lottery, or device of like kind, or a gift enterprise," an offense denounced, and made punishable by Section 4247 of the Criminal Code of Alabama. The bill further avers that said charge was still pending against complainant, appellant in the Circuit Court of Mobile County.
It appears from the bill that the appellant was, at the time of his arrest, and at the time the said indictment was preferred against him, engaged in the operation of a "moving picture house or place of amusement;" and it is averred that the competitors of appellant are and had been resorting to the same or similar methods or practices in order to attract patrons to their houses of amusement, that were made the basis of the criminal charge against appellant. That appellant was alone indicted for said acts, while his competitors were not molested. That appellant, on account of said indictment, was forced to discontinue certain of his practices and thereby lost much of his patronage, resulting in great financial loss to him.
The bill was and is entirely without equity. It is essentially a suit against the state to enjoin the prosecution of appellant under an indictment preferred by a Grand Jury of Mobile County, charging him with the commission of an indictable offense. As such, it cannot be maintained. State Docks Commission v. Barnes, 225 Ala. 403, 143 So. 581; Ex parte Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 230 Ala. 304, 161 So. 108; Alabama Girls' Industrial School v. Reynolds, 143 Ala. 579, 42 So. 114; Cox v. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama, 161 Ala. 639, 49 So. 814; Kansas City Bridge Co. v. Alabama State Bridge Corporation,
287 U.S. 644, 53 S.Ct. 90, 77 L.Ed. 557; State Tax Commission et al. v. Commercial Realty Co., 236 Ala. 358, 182 So. 31.
As a general rule courts of equity are without jurisdiction to restrain or enjoin criminal prosecution. Moses & Beck v. Mayor, etc., of Mobile, 52 Ala. 198.
In the case of Ex parte State ex rel. Martin, Atty. Gen., 200 Ala 15, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Hank's Ambulance Service, Inc.
...Co., 237 Ala. 665, 188 So. 896 [ (1939) ]; and a suit which seeks to enjoin a prosecution of an indictable offense, Montiel v. Holcombe, 240 Ala. 352, 199 So. 245 [ (1940) ]. "This section of the Constitution prohibits a suit against the State by an indirection as by setting up a board and ......
-
Suttles v. Roy
...against the state’ and thus ‘not maintainable’ ” under § 14 of the constitution. Parker, 519 So.2d at 446 (quoting Montiel v. Holcombe, 240 Ala. 352, 199 So. 245 (1940)). Municipal peace officers, however, are “deemed to be officers of this state” for purposes of Ala.Code 1975, § 6–5–338(a)......
-
Parker v. Amerson
...were county officers for the purpose of imposing vicarious liability on a county for the acts of a sheriff. In Montiel v. Holcombe, 240 Ala. 352, 199 So. 245 (1940), this Court held that a suit against a sheriff was "essentially a suit against the Article I, § 14, Alabama Constitution of 19......
-
Harris v. Walker (Ex parte Walker), 1110436.
...duties is ‘ “essentially a suit against the state.” ’ Parker v. Amerson, 519 So.2d 442, 445 (Ala.1987) (quoting Montiel v. Holcombe, 240 Ala. 352, 354, 199 So. 245, 245 (1940)); accord Drain v. Odom, 631 So.2d 971, 972 (Ala.1994) (‘deputy sheriffs are immune to the same extent as sheriffs')......