City of Birmingham v. Reed

44 So. 2d 614, 253 Ala. 414, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 244
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 10, 1949
Docket6 Div. 978.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 44 So. 2d 614 (City of Birmingham v. Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Birmingham v. Reed, 44 So. 2d 614, 253 Ala. 414, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 244 (Ala. 1949).

Opinion

LAWSON, Justice.

The ultimate question for decision by the Court of Appeals was whether or not the judge of the circuit court of Jefferson County had jurisdiction on March 1, 1949, to reinstate the appeal of Emily Reed, which that court had dismissed on January 18, 1949. We are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals has disposed of that question correctly.

While we do not want to be understood as expressing disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals as to the constitutionality of the ordinance under which Emily Reed was convicted in the Recorder’s Court of the City of Birmingham, we feel constrained to point out that such question was not, in pur opinion, before the Court of Appeals.

Supervisory power by means of common law writ of certiorari extends only to questions touching jurisdiction of subordinate tribunals and external validity of proceedings. Towns v. Malone, 217 Ala. 273, 116 So. 131; Ex parte Slaughter, 217 Ala. 515, 116 So. 684.

Even if it be assumed that the ordinance was unconstitutional, it would not follow that the judge of the circuit court had jurisdiction to reinstate the appeal oh March 1, 1949, which was more than thirty days from January 18, 1949, the date on which the appeal was dismissed. § 588, Title 37, Code 1940.

The validity of the proceedings in the Recorder’s court was not before the Court of Appeals by virtue of the writ issued by that court on April 12, 1949.

True, a conviction under a void ordinance is a nullity and one so convicted is entitled to discharge on habeas corpus. Barton v. City of Bessemer, 234 Ala. 20, 173 So. 626. But, as before indicated, the validity vel non of the said ordinance is not involved in this proceeding.

The concluding paragraph of the original opinion of the Court of Appeals is as follows: "The writ of certiorari is hereby granted as prayed, and the judgment and order of the Circuit Court of March 1, 1949 purporting to set aside its previous order dismissing the appeal of Emily Reed from the Recorder’s Court of the City of Birmingham is hereby quashed.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The italicized portion of the above quotation from the opinion of the Court of Ap *416 peals is obviously incorrect. The writ of certiorari was issued on April 12, 1949. It was by virtue of the issuance of that writ that the records of the inferior tribunal were before the Court of Appeals.

However, such incorrect statement does not affect the judgment of the Court of Appeals, as that court correctly quashed the order of March 1, 1949, reinstating the appeal.

Writ denied.

BROWN, FOSTER and STAKELY, JJ-, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. State
470 So. 2d 1365 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Saad v. Cline
288 So. 2d 731 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1974)
Watkins v. City of Dothan
109 So. 2d 671 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)
Ex Parte Watkins
109 So. 2d 671 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)
Keith v. City of Birmingham
49 So. 2d 227 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1950)
Fiorella v. City of Birmingham
48 So. 2d 761 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1950)
City of Birmingham v. Reed
44 So. 2d 616 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1950)
Champion v. State
44 So. 2d 616 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 So. 2d 614, 253 Ala. 414, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-birmingham-v-reed-ala-1949.