Dane v. Mayor of Mobile

36 Ala. 304
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

E. W. WALKEE, J.

By an ordinance of the city of Mobile it is provided, that the lamps of every carriage, hack, or cab kept for hire, “ shall be lighted every night, moonlight or dark, at dusk, and continue so lighted, while in the streets or elsewhere, on hire ; under penalty of not less than five, nor more than fifty dollars, to be imposed on the owner or driver.” — Municipal Laws of Mobile, 105, § 86. The effect of this ordinance is to make the owner of a cab liable for the failure of his driver to keep the lamps lighted. Consequently, it is no answer to this proceeding, that Dane was not present, and had no knowledge of the violation of law complained of.

[2.] Whether the driver had violated the ordinance in question, was a question of fact, to be tried by the court, [306]*306without the intervention of a jury.' — Code, § 2369. In this class of cases, we think the proper practice is, not to reverse the judgment, unless the decision of the court below on the question of fact is manifestly wrong. As we cannot say that this is so in the present case, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Dane v. Mayor of Mobile, 36 Ala. 304 (Ala. 1860).

36 Ala. 304 (Dane v. Mayor of Mobile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tomlin v. Mayor of Birmingham
109 Ala. 243 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)
Totten & Brother v. Sale & Co.
72 Ala. 488 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1882)
Bonner v. State
55 Ala. 242 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1876)
Ex parte Buckley
53 Ala. 42 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Marlowe v. Benagh
52 Ala. 112 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)