Patterson v. Jefferson County, 6 Div. 587.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 587. |
| Citation | 238 Ala. 442,191 So. 681 |
| Parties | PATTERSON v. JEFFERSON COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. F. Thompson, Judge.
Bill by George D. Patterson, Jr., against Jefferson County, the County Commission of Jefferson County, and the individual members thereof, for a declaratory judgment as to validity of proposed hospital bonds. From a decree favorable to defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
George D. Patterson, Jr., pro se.
Sam C Pointer and Lawrence Dumas, Jr., both of Birmingham, for appellees.
The bill alleges that on October 14, 1939, the County Commission of Jefferson County, which is the governing body of that county, at a regular meeting passed a resolution providing for the issuance of bonds, and attached a copy of the resolution as an exhibit to the bill.
The resolution recited that it was necessary and desirable for Jefferson County to construct a hospital, and to provide funds for that purpose by issuing bonds payable solely from revenues derived from its operation, known as revenue anticipation bonds; that the bonds are to be negotiable special obligation, serial coupon hospital revenue anticipation bonds and payable solely from revenues derived from the operation of the hospital. The form of bonds so authorized is set out and stipulates that they are only thus payable, and do not constitute a debt of the county, and payment is not subject to be enforced out of other funds than as thus stipulated.
The bill also alleges that the county commission has filed with the Department of Finance of Alabama a petition for its consent to the issuance and sale of said bonds pursuant to the "Municipal Bond Act of 1935" (page 195), to which we have elsewhere referred as the Lee Act, and will sometimes do so in this opinion; and also pursuant to Act No 112 of the 1939 General Acts of Alabama, approved March 7 1939, creating the Department of Finance of Alabama.
It is then alleged that the County Commission has either complied with, or proposes to comply with, all the provisions of said Lee Act, and to issue said bonds in strict compliance with all its provisions; but that it has not called an election upon the question of whether or not it will enter upon such undertaking, and has declared a purpose not to do so: though an election is provided for in the Carmichael Act of 1933, General Acts 1933, Ex.Sess., page 100, relating to electric plants and facilities, and has not complied with an Act approved March 10, 1933, No. 46, page 22, relating to waterworks plants and facilities, and has declared a purpose not to do so: that said proposed bonds do not meet certain requirements of an Act, No. 102 of March 29, 1933, General Acts, page 88, relating to water and sewer systems and sanitary disposal plants and gas systems. And that the county commission has declared a purpose not to comply with the following Acts in addition to those named: March 10, 1933, Act No. 47, General Acts, page 29, relating to the acquisition and maintenance of sewage disposal systems in certain districts, etc.; or the Act No. 66, of 1933, Ex.Sess., page 56, relating to toll tunnels, streets and roads; or the Act, No. 264 of 1932, General Acts 1932, Ex.Sess., page 254, relating to sewage disposal plants; or the Act, No. 265 of 1932, General Acts 1932, Ex.Sess., page 264, relating to waterworks systems; or any other statute or act except such as are "identical with the provisions of the 'Municipal Revenue Act of 1935,' " Gen.Acts 1935, p. 195, and do not intend to comply with the provisions of any other act of Alabama governing the issuance of bonds by counties or municipalities.
The bill seeks a declaratory judgment as to whether:
a-1. Section 1-A of the Carmichael Act of 1933, supra, limits and must be construed with the Lee Act of 1935, supra, and Act No. 112 of 1939, supra.
b-2. Whether section 4 of the Act, No. 46 of 1933, supra, is a limitation upon or to be construed with the Lee Act, supra.
c-3. Whether section 7 of the Act, No. 102 of 1933, supra, page 88, is to be so construed.
d-4. Whether section 13 of the said Act, No. 102 of 1933, supra, page 88, is to be so construed.
e-5. Whether the provisions of any act above mentioned is to be so construed.
f-6. Whether the proposed bond issue is in conformity with the Lee Act of 1935, supra, and would be legal.
The decree answered the first five inquiries in the negative, and the sixth in the affirmative.
We think the decree of the Court reflects a proper interpretation of those acts in the light of our cases. Alabama Power Co. v. City of Scottsboro, Ala.Sup., 190 So. 412; Landstreet v. City of Ft. Payne, Ala.Sup., 190 So. 420; Alabama Power Co. v. City of Ft. Payne, 237 Ala. 459, 187 So. 632. We there held in substance that the legislature cannot delegate to any person the power to determine what law shall be controlling in a particular transaction. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, page 342, § 133, note 28; Pridgen v. Sweat, 125 Fla. 598, 170 So. 653; Richardson v. Baldwin, 124 Fla. 233, 168 So. 255.
We have emphasized the idea that there can be but one system of laws under a single commonwealth to control the effect of a certain transaction. All laws in relation to it must be construed together forming one whole harmonious plan, none of whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cofer v. Ensor
...with the right of plaintiff to select one or the other as he sees fit. State v. Summer, 248 Ala. 545, 28 So.2d 565; Patterson v. Jefferson County, 238 Ala. 442, 191 So. 681. "We adhere to the principle stated in our cases that when the death of a minor is wrongfully caused, and he leaves a ......
-
Phenix City v. Alabama Power Co.
... ... 547 PHENIX CITY v. ALABAMA POWER CO. 4 Div. 123.Supreme Court of AlabamaMay 9, 1940 ... from Circuit Court, Russell County; J. S. Williams, Judge ... Suit in ... population than 6,000. and had the charter power under acts ... of ... , Constitutional Law, § 133, 340; Patterson v ... Jefferson County, 238 Ala. 442, 191 So ... ...
-
Mead v. Eagerton
...of the Justices, 249 Ala. 389(3), 31 So.2d 558; Hawkins v. State Board of Adjustment, 242 Ala. 547(4), 7 So.2d 775; Patterson v. Jefferson County, 238 Ala. 442, 191 So. 681; Opinion of the Justices, 244 Ala. 386(4), 13 So.2d 674. Of course this has no reference to the constitutional require......
-
Foreman v. Dorsey Trailers
...province of the litigant to designate the law which fixes his cause of action. That would be in effect legislating. Patterson v. Jefferson County, 238 Ala. 442, 191 So. 681; Phenix City v. Alabama Power Co., 239 Ala. 547, 195 So. Except as modified by statute, a servant assumes the risk of ......