Talley v. Webster
| Decision Date | 06 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 676. |
| Citation | 225 Ala. 384,143 So. 555 |
| Parties | TALLEY v. WEBSTER ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Joel W. Goldsby, Judge.
Action of unlawful detainer by James E. Talley against Lillian M Webster and Daniel B. Webster. From an order or judgment dismissing the suit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
See also, 222 Ala. 188, 131 So. 555.
J. G Bowen, of Mobile, for appellant.
Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellees.
Appellant brought suit in unlawful detainer. The defendants appealed to the circuit court. On motion of defendants, the suit was dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff. The appeal is from this order.
By section 2 of an act "to regulate the practice and procedure in courts of justices of the peace in Mobile county," approved September 10, 1915, it is provided "That before instituting suit in the court of a justice of the peace in Mobile county requiring personal service on the defendant, the plaintiff or his attorney shall make affidavit, before such justice of the peace, of facts showing that such suit is authorized by law; and without such affidavit, all proceedings in such suit shall be null and void." Local Acts 1915, p. 312.
The tenor of the act as a whole discloses a purpose to further legislate against the institution of suits before justices of the peace in Mobile county in precincts other than those prescribed by law; to avoid the necessity for a defendant to appear in such case and raise the issue in such courts.
The main, if not the sole, point, raised by assignments of error, and presented in brief on this appeal, is to the effect that this statute is violative of section 105 of the Constitution, providing that "no *** local law *** shall be enacted in any case which is provided for by a general law ** nor shall the legislature indirectly enact any such *** local law by the partial repeal of a general law."
We need not review the numerous cases construing this section. Suffice to say it does not inhibit the passage of local laws on subjects, not prohibited by section 104, merely because such local law is different, and works a partial repeal of the general laws of the State in the territory affected.
Manifestly, the local act in question, in several respects, changes the existing law regulating the jurisdiction of suits in the justice courts in Mobile county. Whether there was occasion to remedy some evil of this character in Mobile county was a legislative, not a judicial, question. The act in question is not violative of section 105 of the Constitution. Dunn v. Dean, 196 Ala. 486, 71 So. 708; State, etc., v. Prince, 199 Ala. 444, 74 So. 939; Brandon v. Askew, 172 Ala. 160, 54 So. 605; Board of Revenue v. Kayser, 205 Ala. 289, 88 So. 19; Jackson v. Sherrod, 207 Ala. 245, 92 So. 481; Riley v. State, 209 Ala. 505, 96 So. 599; Polytinsky v. Wilhite, 211 Ala. 94, 99 So. 843; Ex parte Alabama Brokerage Co., 208 Ala. 242, 94 So. 87; Forman v. Hair, 150 Ala. 589, 43 So. 827; City Bank & Trust Co. v. State, 172 Ala. 197, 55 So. 511; City Council v. Reese, 149 Ala. 188, 43 So. 116; State ex rel. Day v. Bowles, 217 Ala. 458, 461, 116 So. 662.
Section 8 of the act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State ex rel. City of Birmingham
...boundary lines of Phoenix City, did not contravene either the provisions of section 104 or 105 of the Constitution." In Talley v. Webster, 225 Ala. 384, 143 So. 555, it held that "Constitutional provision prohibiting local laws provided for by general laws does not prohibit local laws on su......
-
Opinion of the Justices, In re
...250 Ala. 246, 34 So.2d 152, and cases cited; Johnson v. State ex rel. City of Birmingham, 245 Ala. 499, 17 So.2d 662; Talley v. Webster, 225 Ala. 384, 143 So. 555; Standard Oil Co. v. Limestone County, 220 Ala. 231, 124 So. 523; State ex rel. Brooks v. Gullatt, 210 Ala. 452, 98 So. H. 39 le......
-
State ex rel. Bozeman v. Hester, 8 Div. 755
...See Hall v. Underwood, 258 Ala. 392, 63 So.2d 683. In Steadman v. Kelly, 250 Ala. 246, 34 So.2d 152, 156, we quoted from Talley v. Webster, 225 Ala. 384, 143 So. 555, saying: 'We need not review the numerous cases construing this section . Suffice it to say it does not inhibit the passage o......
-
Steadman v. Kelly
...different from the general law, the Legislature has power to so enact.' See also Talley v. Webster, 225 Ala. 384, 143 So. 555. In Talley v. Webster, supra, this court held that a local changed the general act which regulated the jurisdiction of suits in justice courts in Mobile County. In t......