City of Birmingham v. Wheeler

145 So. 140, 225 Ala. 678, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 317
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 22, 1932
Docket6 Div. 229.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 145 So. 140 (City of Birmingham v. Wheeler) 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. Wheeler, 145 So. 140, 225 Ala. 678, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 317 (Ala. 1932).

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

The complaint was brought under the Act of 1931, p. 370, authorizing an action of ejectment by the purchaser at a mortgage sale, and is identical with form 30 of section 9531 of the Code of 1923, and which said form is expressly prescribed by section 2 of said Act of 1931. The complaint was not therefore subject to the defendants’ demurrer going to the form of same.

The other grounds of demurrer go to the constitutionality of the Act of 1931. The act applies to all counties now having, or which may have according to any future census, 300,000 inhabitants. This was a single classification, and was not a mere designation, and was not, under our previous decisions, a local law. State ex rel. Gunter v. Thompson, 193 Ala. 561, 69 So. 461, Crenshaw v. Joseph, 175 Ala. 759, 57 So. 942.

The act does not violate section 45 of the Constitution. It deals with but one general subject, to wit, the right of the purchaser at a mortgage sale of real property to recover possession by an action of ejectment and to regulate the proceedings in such action. The objections argued to the different sections relate to the proceedings and which are germane and cognate to the title. Nor do we think the act violates the due process or equal rights clause of the Constitution.

The trial court erroneously sustained the defendants’ demurrer to the complaint.

The other question argued by counsel was not considered or decided by the trial court, and we do not feel disposed to pass on same as an original proposition. This is a court of appellate jurisdiction, with few exceptions, and we are not disposed to pass on questions upon appeal not considered or decided by the trial court.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Constantine v. First Alabama Bank of Birmingham
465 So. 2d 419 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1984)
Masters v. Pruce
274 So. 2d 33 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1973)
Crossett v. St. Louis Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
269 So. 2d 869 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1972)
Cox v. Howard Hall Company
265 So. 2d 580 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1972)
White v. City Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
258 So. 2d 900 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1972)
Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Company
255 So. 2d 35 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1971)
Mason v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
208 So. 2d 63 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 So. 140, 225 Ala. 678, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-birmingham-v-wheeler-ala-1932.