Rogers v. White

• Decision Date: 05 February 1916
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 55
• Citation: 70 So. 994,14 Ala.App. 482
• Parties: ROGERS v. WHITE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

70 So. 994

14 Ala.App. 482

ROGERS v. WHITE.

6 Div. 55

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 5, 1916

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C.B. Smith, Judge.

Action by Charles F. White, secretary, etc., against Cleon B Rogers, treasurer, etc. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Constitutional questions certified to the Supreme Court, and, upon its response, judgment reversed and remanded.

W.K Terry, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Henry Upson Sims, L.J. Haley, James A. Mitchell, Jelks H. Cabaniss G.R. Harsh, E.D. Smith, and H.R. Howze, all of Birmingham for appellee.

BROWN J.

The sole question presented in this case is whether or not the act of the Legislature, entitled "an act to require the board of revenue of Jefferson county to pay over each month out of the general fund of said county to the secretary of the Birmingham Bar Association or to some [other] person to be designated by the judges of the courts of record of Jefferson county the sum of one hundred fifty dollars for the maintenance of a public law library in the city of Birmingham and to provide for the disposition of such money," approved September 10, 1915 (Local Acts 1915, pp. 372, 373), in so far as it authorizes the payment of the sum named therein to the secretary of the Birmingham Bar Association, is violative of section 94 of the Constitution of 1901 , providing that:

"The Legislature shall not have power to authorize any county, city, town, or other subdivision of this state to lend its credit, or to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, association, or corporation, *** or to become a stockholder in any such corporation, association or company, by issuing bonds or otherwise."

The opinion here prevails that said act, in the respect above indicated, is unconstitutional for the reasons following: The act clearly contemplates that the allowance granted by the act in aid of the Bar Association shall be paid over to the secretary of the association, to be used for the benefit of the Bar Association, without the responsibility of accounting to the public authorities therefor, and the county, in its corporate capacity, acquires no interest in the library, and has no voice in its control. The library remains the exclusive property of the Bar Association, and whatever property may be acquired with the funds donated to it out of the public treasury becomes its property. The only benefit offered as compensation for this aid is the use by the public of the law library of the corporation, which is of no use or value to the great body of the public burdened by this act with its support, further than it affords a very limited number constituting a certain class--the lawyers who are members of the association--the means of acquiring knowledge to better aid them in the prosecution of a business for private gain. In short, the act clearly grants this...