Forcheimer & Co. v. Port of Mobile

84 Ala. 126
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 15, 1887·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

SOMEEVILLE, J.

Under the principles settled in The Port of Mobile v. The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., decided at the present term, and the case of Burnett v. Craig, 30 Ala. 135; s. c. 68 Amer. Dec. 115, the facts stated in the complainants’ bill do not present a case of irreparable damage threatened by the enforcement of the municipal ordinance sought to be enjoined, and no question being involved as to the protection of a franchise, the decree of the chancellor must be affirmed. Before the injunctive aid of a chancery court can be successfully invoked in this case, the complainants must first establish the invalidity of the ordinance in question by judgment of a court of law. Their remedy at law is not shown to be inadequate.

Affirmed.

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

Forcheimer & Co. v. Port of Mobile, 84 Ala. 126 (Ala. 1887).

84 Ala. 126 (Forcheimer & Co. v. Port of Mobile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Higdon v. McDuff
172 So. 636 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
City of Lynchburg v. Peters
133 S.E. 674 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1926)
Rawls v. City of Miami
89 So. 351 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)
Board of Commissioners v. Orr.
61 So. 920 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
City of Bessemer v. Bessemer City Water Works
44 So. 663 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Brown v. Mayor of Birmingham
140 Ala. 590 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)
Town of Orange City v. Thayer
45 Fla. 502 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Inglis v. Freeman
137 Ala. 298 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)