State ex rel. Kinney v. Town of Steppville
Decision Date | 21 May 1936 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 957 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. KINNEY v. TOWN OF STEPPVILLE et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; W.W. Callahan, Judge.
Quo warranto proceeding by the State, on the relation of H.H Kinney, deputy solicitor of Cullman county, against the Town of Steppville and the mayor and aldermen thereof. From a judgment for respondents, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
H.H Kinney and Kenneth Griffith, both of Cullman, and S.A. Lynne of Decatur, for appellant.
James & Stewart, of Cullman, for appellees.
The proceeding in the circuit court was quo warranto to test the validity of the incorporation of the town of Steppville, and the legality vel non of the acts of its officials.
The minutes of the probate court in evidence disclose that the municipality was organized and incorporated (as New Hanceville, the name being subsequently changed), and has acted in good faith as such municipality since 1921, under the terms of sections 1053-1055 of the Code of 1907, and section 1744 of the Code of 1923.
We have examined the petition as passed upon and ascertained by the judge of probate to confer jurisdiction, and on which that official, the citizenship, electorate, and duly qualified voters resident in that territory were affected and acted upon in the premises. We hold the petition to have been a compliance with the law in the respect of incorporation.
The judgment shown by the record includes the material, ascertained facts, as conditions precedent to a valid municipal incorporation of the class of municipalities to which the statute has application. Among other things, the judgment recites:
It is insisted that the plat recited to have accompanied the petition and conformed to the description employed of the territory to be embraced in the incorporation is not on this trial to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cahaba Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Water Works Bd. of City of Birmingham
...d[id] not constitute a justiciable controversy" and, thus, that "the [circuit] court's jurisdiction was not efficaciously invoked." 232 Ala. at 407, 168 So. at 452. From the beginning, then, this Court has been clear that the justiciable-controversy requirement is not merely an element of s......
-
State ex rel. Suther v. City of Midfield
...to attack the original incorporation of a municipality, State v. Town of Addison, 262 Ala. 139, 77 So.2d 663; State v. Town of Steppville, 232 Ala. 407, 168 So. 433; and it has been used in contesting annexation proceedings, Town of Oxford v. State, 257 Ala. 349, 58 So.2d In the Town of Oxf......
-
Reagan v. Rhodes
...255 Ala. 150, 50 So.2d 441; Town of Flat Creek v. Alabama By-Products Corp., 245 Ala. 528, 17 So.2d 771; State ex rel. Kinney v. Town of Steppville, 232 Ala. 407, 168 So. 433; West End v. State, 138 Ala. 295, 36 So. 423; McQuillin Municipal Corporations, 3rd Ed., Vol. I, § 3.28, p. This bri......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Cullman County Electric Membership Corporation
... ... the State by making electric energy available to inhabitants ... of ... Gelders v. State ex rel. Freeman, 164 Ala. 592, 51 ... So. 232; State ex rel. ey v. Steppville, 232 ... Ala. 407, 168 So. 433; State ex rel. Allen v ... ...