Dodson v. Beaird

187 So. 862, 237 Ala. 587, 1939 Ala. LEXIS 253
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 13, 1939
Docket6 Div. 484.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 187 So. 862 (Dodson v. Beaird) 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
Dodson v. Beaird, 187 So. 862, 237 Ala. 587, 1939 Ala. LEXIS 253 (Ala. 1939).

Opinions

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

Bill by appellant, a taxpayer, to restrain and enjoin the issuance of- certain road warrants by the appellee.

It appears that the appellee is the duly appointed Road and Bridge Commissioner of Cullman County, under and by. virtue of an Act of the Legislature, known as House Bill 152 and approved February the 15th, 1939. Said act clothes the said commissioner with the duties and authority, if not more, vested in the Board of Finance and Control of Cullman County, wherein the authority and duties of the County Commissioners or Board of Revenue were transferred and reposed in the said Board of Finance and Control created under the Local Acts of 1936, Sp. Sess.,.p, 70, and which authority and duties are now being exercised by the ' appellee under the said Act. of 1939.

*590 This case falls directly under the influence of Lyon v. Shelby County, 235 Ala. 69, 177 So. 306, approved and amplified in Isbell v. Shelby County et al., 235 Ala. 571, 180 So. 567. See also Herbert v. Perry, 235 Ala. 71, 177 So. 561.

The only point made in brief of appellant against the present proposed issue of warrants is that they do not propose to bé issued for a past due or existing indebtedness as distinguished from a future obligation or indebtedness to be incurred under the agreement set out or referred to between the County and State Highway Authority looking to the joint improvement and construction of the Cullman County roads, relying on the case of Court of County Com’rs of De Kalb County et al. v. McCartney, 207 Ala. 230, 92 So. 439. It is sufficient to say that that case dealt with a statute unlike the ones dealt with in the cases supra, and the ones controlling the present case.

The decree of the circuit court denying the relief sought by the original bill and awarding the appellee relief sought by his cross-bill is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

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

Related

Pinckard v. State Board of Education
189 So. 2d 153 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Beason v. Bowlin
173 So. 2d 93 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1965)
Taxpayers & Citizens of Lawrence County v. Lawrence County
143 So. 2d 813 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1962)
Ryan v. Ryan
108 So. 2d 340 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)
Bentley v. County Commission for Russell County
84 So. 2d 490 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Faust v. Ragsdale
44 So. 2d 580 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1949)
Bullock County v. Sherlock
5 So. 2d 800 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1942)
Klein v. Jefferson County Building & Loan Ass'n
195 So. 593 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 So. 862, 237 Ala. 587, 1939 Ala. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodson-v-beaird-ala-1939.