Town of Warrior v. Blaylock
| Decision Date | 04 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 743 |
| Citation | 275 Ala. 113,152 So.2d 661 |
| Parties | TOWN OF WARRIOR et al. v. J. F. BLAYLOCK. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rogers, Howard, Redden & Mills, Birmingham, for appellants.
Cato & Hicks, Birmingham, for appellee.
Appellee filed suit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, equity division, against appellants seeking a declaratory determination of the validity of an ordinance passed by the Town of Warrior, located in Jefferson County.
The ordinance, as it appears in the complaint of record in this appeal, levies on each wholesale or retail beer dealer doing business within the corporate limits of the town a privilege license tax in the sum of $5,000.00.
The complaint is that the levy is unreasonable, excessive, prohibitory, discriminating, and violative of complainant's constitutional rights under certain designated provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions.
The respondents, separately and severally, addressed demurrers to the complaint, which the trial court overruled. From this decree, the respondents appeal to this court.
One ground of demurrer, together with others of like import, is that there is no justiciable issue or controversy between the complainant and any of the respondents.
The amended complaint (Paragraph 7A) alleges 'that he (complainant) is prepared to enter the business of selling beer, malt beverages and ale in the police jurisdiction, but not within the corporate limits, of the Town of Warrior, Alabama.' (Par. Supplied)
The complaint in the record before us fails to aver that the respondent, Town of Warrior, imposes or levies any privilege license tax, either as a fire or a police protection measure, for selling beer, either at retail or wholesale, within the police jurisdiction of the Town of Warrior.
Therefore, there is no justiciable issue or controversy shown in the complaint between complainant and respondents. For aught appearing in the complaint, complainant is privileged to proceed to sell beer within the police jurisdiction without impediment or the payment of any license tax or fee to respondents.
We have held in Shadix v. City of Birmingham, 251 Ala. 610, 38 So.2d 851(5), that the declaratory statutes do not empower courts to decide moot questions, abstract propositions, or to give advisory opinions, however convenient it might be to have these questions decided for the government of future cases.
There must be a justiciable controversy between the parties where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Citizens of State
...judgment there must be shown in the record an actual controversy wherein legal rights are affected. Town of Warrior v. Blaylock, 275 Ala. 113, 114, 152 So.2d 661, 661 (1963); Scott v. Alabama State Bridge Corp., 233 Ala. 12, 17, 169 So. 273, 277 (1936). The citizens of the State of Alabama ......
-
Belcher v. Marshall (Ex parte Marshall)
...2003) (quoting Stamps v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 642 So. 2d 941, 944 (Ala. 1994), quoting in turn Town of Warrior v. Blaylock, 275 Ala. 113, 114, 152 So. 2d 661, 662 (1963) (emphasis added in Stamps ))." ‘This Court has emphasized that declaratory-judgment actions must "settle a ‘bon......
-
City of Montgomery v. Hunter
...of future cases.’ " Stamps v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 642 So. 2d 941, 944 (Ala. 1994) (quoting Town of Warrior v. Blaylock, 275 Ala. 113, 114, 152 So. 2d 661, 662 (1963) )(emphasis added in Stamps ). Pursuant to § 6–6–226, declaratory relief may be afforded in cases "in which a judgm......
-
Moore v. City of Ctr. Point
...of future cases.’ " Stamps v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 642 So. 2d 941, 944 (Ala. 1994) (quoting Town of Warrior v. Blaylock, 275 Ala. 113, 114, 152 So. 2d 661, 662 (1963) )(emphasis added in Stamps ). Pursuant to § 6–6–226, declaratory relief may be afforded in cases "in which a judgm......