Wood v. City of Mobile

• Decision Date: 08 February 1900
• Docket Number: 218.
• Citation: 99 F. 615
• Parties: WOOD v. CITY OF MOBILE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

99 F. 615

WOOD v. CITY OF MOBILE.

No. 218.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Alabama.

February 8, 1900

Bestor & Gray and R. H. Clarke, for complainant.

B. B Boone, City Atty., for defendant.

TOULMIN District Judge.

By the bill in this case the complainant claims to be the owner, as tenant in common with the defendant, of certain lands and other property, and of certain riparian rights appertaining and belonging to some of said lands, constituting a system of waterworks, known as the 'Stein Waterworks.' Complainant charges that on May 14, 1898, the defendant took exclusive actual possession of said waterworks, and all of said property, rights, and franchises, unlawfully and against complainant's will, ousting him of the possession of every part he then held as the owner in co-tenancy of an undivided share thereof; that the defendant has since had the exclusive possession of said property, and dealt with the same as if it were the sole rightful owner thereof, has continuously operated said waterworks and used said property has appropriated to its own use all the income derived therefrom during the time, is still so using and operating the same and appropriating the income therefrom, and will continue so to do unless restrained by this court. Complainant further charges that the defendant has not kept the property in reasonable repair, and has allowed it to deteriorate and go to decay, and is continuing so to do, and will eventually dispose of or destroy or abandon all of the tangible property appertaining to said waterworks, unless restrained from so doing by this court. He alleges that the defendant rests its right to hold and use said property and said waterworks as it has done and is now doing upon certain legislative enactments and condemnation proceedings thereunder had in the probate court of Mobile county, and in which proceedings said court made a final decree purporting to condemn complainant's interest in said property, rights, and franchises to the use of the defendant. Complainant charges that said final decree is altogether void, and confers no authority upon defendant to take, hold, and use complainant's interest in said waterworks and in said property, rights, and franchises. Complainant charges that he has been greatly damaged by the said acts of the defendant; that the defendant is insolvent and unable to respond in damages to the complainant in a suit at law. The relief prayed for in the bill is, among other things, for an injunction restraining the defendant from injuring or impairing the efficiency of said waterworks and property, and from using the same, until the determination of a suit at law for the recovery of the said property and of this suit.

The bill is filed mainly to prevent waste. To sustain the bill and to entitle the complainant to the relief sought, the decree of the probate court referred to must be altogether void, and...