Weeks v. Bynum

• Decision Date: 14 January 1909
• Citation: 158 Ala. 231,48 So. 489
• Parties: WEEKS v. BYNUM ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

48 So. 489

158 Ala. 231

WEEKS v. BYNUM ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 14, 1909

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lamar County; W. H. Simpson, Chancellor.

Bill by C. M. Weeks against B. C. Bynum and others. From a decree dissolving a temporary injunction, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Bankhead & Bankhead, for appellant.

J. C Milner, Walter Nesmith and S.D. & J. B. Weakley, for appellees.

DENSON J.

This bill is presented by C. M. Weeks, a taxpayer and resident citizen of Lamar county, against B. C. Bynum, doing business under the name of Bynum Construction Company, and the members of the court of county commissioners of said county individually and in their official capacity. The purpose of the bill is to enjoin the respondents from taking down the courthouse of that county, and from the erection of a new one in the town of Vernon. The bill was presented to the judge of the law and equity court of Walker county, who granted a temporary injunction. The respondents answered the bill under oath, and upon filing their answers moved to dissolve the injunction for want of equity in the bill and upon the denials contained in their answers. This motion was heard by Chancellor Simpson, in vacation, on the 22d day of July, 1908, and a decree dissolving the injunction was enrolled July 27, 1908. From that decree this appeal is taken.

By statute county buildings are to be erected and kept in order and repair at the expense of the county, under the direction and control of the court of county commissioners, and that court is authorized to make all necessary contracts for that purpose. Code 1907, § 131. Section 133 of the Code makes it the duty of the court of county commissioners to erect courthouses and other county buildings. This court is committed to the doctrine that in all cases, in the discharge of these statutory duties, the court of county commissioners exercises a discretion which cannot be controlled by any judicial tribunal, in the absence of fraud, corruption, or unfair dealing. 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 996; Hays v Ahlrichs, 115 Ala. 239, 22 So. 15; White v Hewlett, 143 Ala. 374, 42 So. 78; Matkin v. Marengo Co., 137 Ala. 155, 34 So. 171. In the case last cited the court uses this language: "Under our statutes there can be no doubt of the proposition that the court of county commissioners has sole and exclusive power and authority in the matter of determining the necessity for a new...