Parks v. City of Montgomery
| Decision Date | 12 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 5 |
| Citation | 38 Ala.App. 681,92 So.2d 683 |
| Parties | Rosa PARKS v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Fred D. Gray and Chas. D. Langford, Montgomery, and Robt. L. Carter, New York City, for appellant.
Knabe & Nachman and Herman H. Hamilton, Jr., Montgomery, for appellee.
In the Recorder's Court of the City of Montgomery this appellant was found guilty of violating Chapter 1, Section 8 of the City Code of Montgomery, Alabama.
On her appeal to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, she was again found guilty by the court, her demand for a jury trial having been withdrawn with the consent of the City.
From her conviction in the Circuit Court she has appealed to this court.
No assignments of error appear in the record filed in this court.
Prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances are statutory and quasi criminal in nature. Perry v. State, 1 Ala.App. 253, 55 So. 1035; Craig v. City of Birmingham, 14 Ala.App. 630, 71 So. 983; Childs v. City of Birmingham, 19 Ala.App. 71, 94 So. 790; Washington v. City of Tuscaloosa, 19 Ala.App. 228, 96 So. 464; Russell v. City of Bessemer, 19 Ala.App. 554, 99 So. 53; Casteel v. City of Decatur, 215 Ala. 4, 109 So. 571; Hundley v. City of Huntsville, 23 Ala.App. 451, 126 So. 616; City of Birmingham v. Williams, 26 Ala.App. 200, 155 So. 878; Gentle v. City of Huntsville, 26 Ala.App. 374, 160 So. 273; Davis v. City of Guntersville, 27 Ala.App. 208, 169 So. 222; Arnold v. City of Mobile, 33 Ala.App. 94, 30 So.2d 40; Jackson v. City of Mobile, 33 Ala.App. 95, 30 So.2d 40; Ekornes v. City of Mobile, 34 Ala.App. 159, 37 So.2d 433; Griffith v. City of Birmingham, 34 Ala.App. 225, 39 So.2d 693; Fiorella v. City of Birmingham, 35 Ala.App. 384, 48 So.2d 761.
Such appeals are not governed by the statute regulating criminal appeals which dispenses with assignments of error, Perry v. State, supra; Casteel v. City of Decatur, supra; Gentle v. City of Huntsville, supra; Swinea v. City of Florence, 28 Ala.App. 332, 183 So. 686; Griffith v. City of Birmingham, supra, but are governed by the rules applicable to civil appeals. Casteel v. City of Decatur, supra; State v. Town of Springville, 220 Ala. 286, 125 So. 387; Gentle v. City of Huntsville, supra; Brooks v. City of Birmingham, 31 Ala.App. 496, 19 So.2d 74; Jackson v. City of Mobile, supra; Ekornes v. City of Mobile, supra; Griffith v. City of Birmingham, supra; Fiorella v. City of Birmingham, supra; Wyatt v. City of Birmingham, 37 Ala.App. 579, 72 So.2d 735.
One of our fundamental rules relating to civil appeals is that there must be assignments of error, otherwise there is nothing before the court for review. Davis v. City of Guntersville, supra; Wetzel v. Hobbs, 249 Ala. 434, 31 So.2d 639; Benich v. Stewart, 34 Ala.App. 61, 36 So.2d 599; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Pollard, 37 Ala.App. 341, 67 So.2d 855; Tidwell v. Town of Town Creek, 264 Ala. 330, 87 So.2d 646. This for the reason that the suing out of an appeal is analogous to the institution of a new suit, in which the assignments take the place of the declaration or bill. Snellings v. Jones, 33 Ala.App. 301, 33 So.2d 371, 372.
Where not errors are assigned in appeals from convictions for violations of municipal ordinances, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. Perry v. State, supra; Dreyfus v. City of Montgomery, 4 Ala.App. 270, 58 So. 730; Stadt v. City of Birmingham, 14 Ala.App. 667, 70 So. 972, 973; Creel v. City of Jasper, Ala.App., 69 So. 239; Craig v. City of Birmingham, supra; Hellner v. City of Montgomery, 16 Ala.App. 366, 77 So. 978; Crowder v. City of Montgomery, 16 Ala.App. 686, 81 So. 134; Childs v. City of Birmingham, supra; Martin v. City of Birmingham, 19 Ala.App. 70, 94 So. 789; Washington v. City of Tuscaloosa, 19 Ala.App. 228, 96 So. 464; Spence v. City of Tuscaloosa, 19 Ala.App. 231, 96 So. 464; Hundley v. City of Huntsville, supra; Peever v. City Com'rs of Florence, 229 Ala. 351, 157 So. 79; Gentle v. City of Huntsville, 26 Ala.App. 374, 160 So. 273; Davis v. City of Guntersville, supra; Swinea v. City of Florence, supra; Arnold v. City of Mobile, supra; Jackson v. City of Mobile, supra; Ekornes v. City of Mobile, supra; Griffith v. City of Birmingham, supra.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gober v. City of Birmingham
...denied 340 U.S. 942, 71 S.Ct. 506, 95 L.Ed. 680; Ellis v. City of Sylacauga, 36 Ala.App. 687, 63 So.2d 33; Parks v. City of Montgomery, 38 Ala.App. 681, 92 So.2d 683. In the proceedings below the appellant filed a motion to strike the complaint, which motion was overruled. This ruling is as......
-
White v. City of Birmingham
...governed by the statutes regulating criminal appeals, but are governed by the rules applicable to civil appeals. Parks v. City of Montgomery, 38 Ala.App. 681, 92 So.2d 683, and the large number of cases cited therein. After an appeal has been taken, a trial court has no power to entertain a......
-
Hendrick v. State, 3 Div. 871
...the witness would not have added anything "to the picture already drawn" by the evidence. In denying certiorari, the Supreme Court said at 92 So.2d 683: "We do not feel that we would be justified in disturbing the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the error insisted on, if error, did not pr......
-
Marcus v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 812
...in municipal ordinance offenses are civil in nature at least so far as requiring assignments of error and briefs. Parks v. City of Montgomery, 38 Ala.App. 681, 92 So.2d 683. Hence, to argue insufficiency, Supreme Court Rule 9(b), requiring a condensation of the testimony of each witness mus......
-
Attorney Fred Gray: another drum major for justice.
...Goode Jones School of Law's Fred Gray Civil Rights Symposium Program, February 10, 2012. (2) 384 F. Supp. 304 (M.D. Ala. 1974). (3) 92 So. 2d 683 (Ala. Ct. App. (4) See http://www.fredgray.net/timeline.html. (5) 352 U.S. 950 (ordering the integration of the busing system in the City of Mont......