Williams v. Wert

Decision Date29 October 1953
Docket Number6 Div. 566
Citation259 Ala. 557,67 So.2d 830
PartiesWILLIAMS et al. v. WERT et al.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Wm. S. Pritchard, A. W. Jones, Victor H. Smith and Pritchard, McCall & Jones, Birmingham, for appellants.

Hugh A. Locke and Reid B. Barnes, Birmingham, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by complainants from a decree of the lower court denying an application for a temporary injunction. It was heard after being set down as provided in section 1054, Title 7, Code, and an appeal taken as provided in section 1057, Title 7.

The injunction is sought against Thomas W. Wert, president of the American Life Insurance Company, Elsie B. Montgomery, vice-president and Hugh Locke, general counsel, stockholder and director of said company, and it is to prevent them from voting at the annual stockholders' meeting to be held on March 17, 1953, the stock which each of them holds and owns in the American Life Insurance Company, an Alabama corporation, and also from voting stock for which proxies have been granted them by other stockholders. The decree refusing to issue a temporary injunction is dated March 16, 1953. An appeal was taken immediately thereafter to this Court. On March 17, 1953, the day on which the stockholders' meeting was to be held, and was held, a motion was made in this Court by appellant for a restraining order pending the appeal. That motion was denied on hearing both parties.

On the submission of the cause in this Court, appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal and presented an affidavit to the effect that on March 17, 1953, the annual stockholders' meeting was held and at said meeting twelve directors were elected, including the said Thomas W. Wert, Elsie B. Montgomery and Judge Hugh Locke. At said election voting for said directors were the owners of 7800 shares of stock over and above the total number of shares owned by said three persons above mentioned, and 1119 such shares were voted for others to be directors; that 30,410 shares were voted for those twelve, including the three above named by proxy cast by Judge Locke and 257 shares were cast by proxy against their election. Those 257 shares were owned by three persons, one of whom is a complainant in this case.

As stated above, the injunction was sought against the defendants restraining them from voting the stock they own and that for which they have a proxy at said annual stockholders' meeting. It did not seek to enjoin them from voting for Thomas W. Wert, Elsie B. Montgomery and Hugh A. Locke to be directors, but from voting at all at said meeting either their own stock or that for which they had a proxy.

The motion to dismiss the appeal because the right to an injunction, if it ever existed, has become moot since the appeal was taken, is dependent upon whether the event which occurred pending the appeal makes a determination of the appeal unnecessary or renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant effectual relief. Gaines v. Malone, 242 Ala. 595, 7 So.2d 263; Coleman v. Mange, 238 Ala. 141, 189 So. 749.

But...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Moore v. Cooke
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 19 Enero 1956
    ...of the appeal unnecessary or renders it clearly impossible for the appellate court to grant effectual relief. Williams v. Wert, 259 Ala. 557, 67 So.2d 830; Shelton v. Shelton, 248 Ala. 48, 26 So.2d 553; Gaines v. Malone, 242 Ala. 595, 7 So.2d 263; Coleman v. Mange, 238 Ala. 141, 189 So. We ......
  • Lusk v. Wade
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 29 Octubre 1953
  • Irwin v. Jefferson Cnty. Pers. Bd.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 2018
    ...only injunctive relief. The primary purpose of injunctive relief, however, is to prevent future injury. See Williams v. Wert, 259 Ala. 557, 559, 67 So.2d 830, 831 (1953) ("The court cannot enjoin an act which has occurred."); 43A C.J.S. Injunctions 17 (2014) ("Equity will not usually issue ......
  • Rogers v. Burch Corp.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 2020
    ...the parties’ employment agreement."The primary purpose of injunctive relief ... is to prevent future injury. See Williams v. Wert, 259 Ala. 557, 559, 67 So. 2d 830, 831 (1953) (‘The court cannot enjoin an act which has occurred.’); 43A C.J.S. Injunctions 17 (2014) (‘Equity will not usually ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT