Reid v. City of Mobile, 1 Div. 338

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtGARDNER, J.
Citation104 So. 787,213 Ala. 321
Docket Number1 Div. 338
Decision Date11 June 1925
PartiesREID v. CITY OF MOBILE.

104 So. 787

213 Ala. 321

REID
v.
CITY OF MOBILE.

1 Div. 338

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1925


Appeal from Circuit court, Mobile County; Joel W. Goldsby, Judge.

Action by David J. Reid, doing business as the Mobile Printing & Binding Company, against the city of Mobile. Plaintiff takes a nonsuit, and appeals from adverse rulings on pleading. Reversed and remanded.

Outlaw & Kilborn, of Mobile, for appellant.

Frank J. Yerger, of Mobile, for appellee.

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court.

GARDNER, J.

Appellant brought this suit against the city of Mobile to recover the purchase price of 54 volumes of the ordinances of the city enacted subsequent to the Municipal Code of 1907. Demurrer having been sustained to his original complaint and to the several counts thereof, as amended, plaintiff took a nonsuit on account of said adverse ruling on the pleadings, and prosecutes this appeal for a review of these rulings.

The resistance on the part of the city to [104 So. 788] the payment of the sum claimed rests chiefly upon the contention that the contract with plaintiff for these 54 volumes of the ordinances was invalid, because not in writing, signed and executed in the manner prescribed by section 1183, Code 1907, now section 1899, Code 1923. City of Mobile v. Mobile Electric Co., 203 Ala. 574, 84 So. 816. This was evidently the view entertained by the trial court; but we are unable to agree.

The above-cited code sections contain the following proviso: "This section shall not be construed to cover purchases for the ordinary needs of the municipality," and we are of the opinion the contract in question comes within the influence of this proviso. The discussion of the term "ordinary expenses" by the court in the case of Livingston v. Pippin, 31 Ala. 542, is helpful in construing the proviso here in question. There it was said that "ordinary expenses are the expenditures which are necessary to carry into effect the ordinary powers of the corporation," as contradistinguished from extraordinary expenses which constitute a necessary means of carrying into effect extraordinary powers. These ordinary expenses, as we gather from the opinion in that case, are such as arise as necessary and proper to carry into effect the implied and incidental powers that pertain to the purposes for which the corporation was created. So, likewise, we think, are "purchases for the ordinary needs" of the city, such purchases as become necessary and proper to effectuate the implied and incidental powers appertaining to the purposes for which the municipality was created. The court judicially knows of the population of the city of Mobile, and the importance of having its ordinances in book or pamphlet form is recognized by sections...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • City of Prichard v. Moulton, 1 Div. 171
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 5, 1964
    ...of printing and binding city ordinances into volumes is a contract for the ordinary expenses of a municipality. Reid v. City of Mobile, 213 Ala. 321, 104 So. Further, Section 496, Title 37, Code of Alabama 1940, specifically empowers municipalities to establish facilities for the disposal o......
  • City of Gadsden v. Jones, 7 Div. 208.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 12, 1933
    ...charter or statute expressly requires it. 44 C.J. page 117, § 2216; City of Mobile v. Mobile Electric Co., supra; Reid v. City of Mobile, 213 Ala. 321, 104 So. 787. So the question to be decided is whether or not the express contract declared on by the plaintiff is within the influence of s......
  • City of Birmingham v. Martin, 6 Div. 240.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 18, 1934
    ...473; Grambs v. City of Birmingham, 202 Ala. 490, 80 So. 874; City of Bessemer v. Pope, 212 Ala. 16, 101 So. 648; Reid v. City of Mobile, 213 Ala. 321, 322, 104 So. 787. Counsel next present for review the action of the trial court in refusing to give, at the written request of the defendant......
  • Burrow v. Berry, 8 Div. 757
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 11, 1925
    ...this decree by statute. An appeal lies from a judgment or order refusing or granting a motion to retax costs. Section 3684, Code 1907, as [104 So. 787.] amended Gen.Acts 1911, p. 90. However, this is not a motion to retax costs. A motion to retax costs must under the statute set forth the p......
4 cases
  • City of Prichard v. Moulton, 1 Div. 171
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 5, 1964
    ...of printing and binding city ordinances into volumes is a contract for the ordinary expenses of a municipality. Reid v. City of Mobile, 213 Ala. 321, 104 So. Further, Section 496, Title 37, Code of Alabama 1940, specifically empowers municipalities to establish facilities for the disposal o......
  • City of Gadsden v. Jones, 7 Div. 208.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 12, 1933
    ...charter or statute expressly requires it. 44 C.J. page 117, § 2216; City of Mobile v. Mobile Electric Co., supra; Reid v. City of Mobile, 213 Ala. 321, 104 So. 787. So the question to be decided is whether or not the express contract declared on by the plaintiff is within the influence of s......
  • City of Birmingham v. Martin, 6 Div. 240.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 18, 1934
    ...473; Grambs v. City of Birmingham, 202 Ala. 490, 80 So. 874; City of Bessemer v. Pope, 212 Ala. 16, 101 So. 648; Reid v. City of Mobile, 213 Ala. 321, 322, 104 So. 787. Counsel next present for review the action of the trial court in refusing to give, at the written request of the defendant......
  • Burrow v. Berry, 8 Div. 757
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 11, 1925
    ...this decree by statute. An appeal lies from a judgment or order refusing or granting a motion to retax costs. Section 3684, Code 1907, as [104 So. 787.] amended Gen.Acts 1911, p. 90. However, this is not a motion to retax costs. A motion to retax costs must under the statute set forth the p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT