Hamilton v. City of Birmingham

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hamilton v. City of Birmingham

185 So. 164, 237 Ala. 8, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 449

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1938

Docket6 Div. 414.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 So. 164 (Hamilton v. City of Birmingham) 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

Hamilton v. City of Birmingham, 185 So. 164, 237 Ala. 8, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 449 (Ala. 1938).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

ANDERSON, C. J., GARDNER, BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., adhere to the decision in City of Opp v. Brogden et al., 236 Ala. 180, 181 So. 752.

The appellants in brief state: “The substance of the inquiry in this case, and in each of said specific questions, is simply this: Are the respondents in the performance of their duties as Tax Collector and Probate Judge of Jefferson County respectively governed by the decision in the case of City of Opp v. Brogden et al., Ala.Sup., 181 So. 752, 1 or does Act 155 of the General Acts of Alabama, 1911 (1911 General Acts of Alabama, p. 130) take the complainants from within the effects of the decision in the City of Opp v. Brogden Case?” (Italics supplied.)

The appellee in brief observes: “As. stated by counsel for appellants, the sole question involved in this appeal is whether the decision of the court in the case of the City of Opp v. Brogden, Ala.Sup., 181 So. 752, 1 controls the duties of the Tax Collector and the Probate Judge of Jefferson County in the collection of taxes due the municipality and in the sale and redemption of any lands sold to satisfy the tax liens or whether the duties of such Tax Collector and Probate Judge are controlled by the 1911 Acts?” General Acts 1911, p. 130.

It would seem that thére is only one answer to the inquiry and that is, in the absence of the adoption of an ordinance by the City of Birmingham as provided in Section 201 of the Revenue Act of 1935, General Acts 1935, pp. 256, 348, the City of Birmingham and the officers mentioned in the Act of 1911 are governed by said Act in the “assessment levy and collection of municipal taxes” of said city.

The only city made a party in the City of Opp v. Brogden et al., supra, was the City of Opp and in so far as the Declaratory Judgment in the case is concerned, Opp is the only city affected thereby. The deciaration of the opinion, however, is authoritative as to municipalities similarly situated.

The decree appealed from is modified as above indicated, and as modified is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur. THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ.,, dissent as indicated in the following opinion by Justice BROWN.

1

236 Ala 180.

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

PER CURIAM.

ANDERSON, C. J., GARDNER, BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., adhere to the decision in City of Opp v. Brogden et al., 236 Ala. 180, 181 So. 752.

The appellants in brief state: “The substance of the inquiry in this case, and in each of said specific questions, is simply this: Are the respondents in the performance of their duties as Tax Collector and Probate Judge of Jefferson County respectively governed by the decision in the case of City of Opp v. Brogden et al., Ala.Sup., 181 So. 752, 1 or does Act 155 of the General Acts of Alabama, 1911 (1911 General Acts of Alabama, p. 130) take the complainants from within the effects of the decision in the City of Opp v. Brogden Case?” (Italics supplied.)

The appellee in brief observes: “As. stated by counsel for appellants, the sole question involved in this appeal is whether the decision of the court in the case of the City of Opp v. Brogden, Ala.Sup., 181 So. 752, 1 controls the duties of the Tax Collector and the Probate Judge of Jefferson County in the collection of taxes due the municipality and in the sale and redemption of any lands sold to satisfy the tax liens or whether the duties of such Tax Collector and Probate Judge are controlled by the 1911 Acts?” General Acts 1911, p. 130.

It would seem that thére is only one answer to the inquiry and that is, in the absence of the adoption of an ordinance by the City of Birmingham as provided in Section 201 of the Revenue Act of 1935, General Acts 1935, pp. 256, 348, the City of Birmingham and the officers mentioned in the Act of 1911 are governed by said Act in the “assessment levy and collection of municipal taxes” of said city.

The only city made a party in the City of Opp v. Brogden et al., supra, was the City of Opp and in so far as the Declaratory Judgment in the case is concerned, Opp is the only city affected thereby. The deciaration of the opinion, however, is authoritative as to municipalities similarly situated.

The decree appealed from is modified as above indicated, and as modified is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur. THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ.,, dissent as indicated in the following opinion by Justice BROWN.

1

236 Ala 180.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 So. 164, 237 Ala. 8, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-city-of-birmingham-ala-1938.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack