Stephens v. State ex rel. Ward
Decision Date | 22 May 1952 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 388 |
Citation | 59 So.2d 69,257 Ala. 375 |
Parties | STEPHENS et al. v. STATE ex rel. WARD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Walter G. Woods, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The bill in this case seeks the injunction of a liquor nuisance under Article 5, Chapter 3, Title 29, Code, beginning with section 141. A liquor nuisance is defined in section 97, Title 29, Code. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and defendant brought this appeal.
Appellant raised the contention by a general demurrer to the bill that the requirements of section 1095, Title 7, Code, were not complied with; and that the allegations of the bill must show its compliance to be free from attack by general demurrer. Reliance is had on the case of Brown v. State ex rel. Wright, 222 Ala. 623, 133 So. 913. But that case and that statute have reference only to the particular nuisance defined in the article of the Code in which section 1095 is set up. The reason for its provisions, as expressed in the Brown case, supra, do not apply to liquor nuisances.
The only other insistence made by appellant is that the description of the property is too vague, uncertain and indefinite. The property alleged to be that on which a liquor nuisance is conducted by defendant is described in the bill of complaint as follows:
Such a description in a complaint is sufficient to withstand demurrer on those grounds. Bradley v. Ballentine, 246 Ala. 271, 20 So.2d 505; Horn v. Peek, 246 Ala. 241, 20 So.2d 234; Allison v. Owens, 248 Ala. 412, 27 So.2d 785.
We think that the contentions made by appellant are not well supported, and were properly overruled by the trial court.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. State ex rel. Waid, 7 Div. 239
...on Klein v. State, 238 Ala. 148, 189 So. 771, which spells out the allegation 'within six months'. In the cases of Stephens v. State ex rel. Ward, 257 Ala. 375, 59 So.2d 69, Barnett v. State ex rel. Simpson, 235 Ala. 326, 179 So. 208, and Lambert v. State ex rel. Hunter, 248 Ala. 487, 28 So......
-
Kelley v. Sutliff
... ... 571, 73 So. 932, that some of our earlier cases broadly state [257 Ala. 374] that making a subsequent will would revoke a prior will ... ...