Salter v. City of Anniston

• Decision Date: 21 November 1929
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 918.
• Citation: 124 So. 663,220 Ala. 199
• Parties: SALTER v. CITY OF ANNISTON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

124 So. 663

220 Ala. 199

SALTER v. CITY OF ANNISTON.

7 Div. 918.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 21, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; R. B. Carr, Judge.

Bill in equity by W. M. Salter against the City of Anniston. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

W. M Salter, pro se.

James F. Matthews and Knox, Acker, Sterne & Liles, all of Anniston for appellee.

GARDNER J.

The bill in the instant case presents the single question whether or not the ballot used by the electors in expressing their preference for and against the proposed bond issue (an outline of which with a copy of the ballot, appears in the report of the case), sufficiently meets the requirements of section 222 of our Constitution. The following cases have dealt with this constitutional provision: Coleman v. Town of Eutaw, 157 Ala. 327, 47 So. 703; Ryan v. Mayor etc., Tuscaloosa, 155 Ala. 479, 46 So. 638; Realty Inv. Co. v. City of Mobile, 181 Ala. 184, 61 So. 248; Thomason v. Court of County Com'rs, 184 Ala. 28, 63 So. 87; Dent v. City of Eufaula, 199 Ala. 280, 74 So. 369.

Appellant relies upon Coleman v. Town of Eutaw, supra. In Realty Investment Co. v. Mobile, 181 Ala. 184, 61 So. 248, 249, the soundness of the decision in the Coleman Case was recognized, but the language of the opinion in its entirety was not approved, but in a measure qualified. In this latter authority, the court, speaking to the object of section 222 of our Constitution, said: "In the matter of elections for bond issues the more definite purpose of this isolated provision seems to have been to provide security for intelligence of choice and its easy expression. These constitute the substance of things for the security of which the form was provided." Pointing out that there may be "a substance of forms even," the court holds to the view that a substantial compliance with the form of the ballot as set out in said section 222, will meet the purpose of this constitutional requirement.

In that case the form of the ballot did not meet the literal requirement of the constitutional form, as the printers' brace was such as to make one statement of the character of the bonds serve for both the affirmative and the negative of the question submitted to the voter, whereas an exacting pursuit of the constitutional form would have required that the statement be literally repeated.

In the instant case the ballot presented but a single issue as to which the voter was to express his choice, containing first instructions to the voter as to the proper method of expressing his choice; second, a full and concise statement of the subject-matter of the election put in the form of a query, followed by a drawn line, immediately below which are the "cross mark" brackets where the voter expresses his choice. There the amount of the bond issue of the city of Anniston is designated, and the period for which they are to run, but it is insisted there should have been further designation of the purpose for which they are issued or for which the funds are to be devoted. But we think the designation of the bonds in the cross-mark lines bears so definite a relation to the language of the query immediately preceding, as to all...