Miller v. City of Huntsville

Alabama Court of Appeals

Miller v. City of Huntsville

100 So. 78, 19 Ala. App. 656, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 93

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 22, 1924

Docket8. Div. 108.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 So. 78 (Miller v. City of Huntsville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. City of Huntsville, 100 So. 78, 19 Ala. App. 656, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 93 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The evidence ill this case, without dispute, disclosed that the appellant was an independent cotton buyer, and did engage in the business of a cotton buyer in the city of Huntsville during the period of time covered by the complaint; and, further, that he so engaged in said business of a cotton buyer without having first paid for and taken out a license, so to do, as required by the license ordinance of said city of Huntsville.

The material questions, therefore, presented by this appeal, are: (1) The sufficiency of the complaint or affidavit as finally amended; and, (2) the validity of the ordinance in question.

[1] We are of the opinion that the complaint or- affidavit as finally amended was not subject to any of the grounds of demurrer interposed thereto, and that the demurrers were properly overruled. Turner v. Town of *657 Lineville, 2 Ala. App. 454, 56 South. 603; Laue v. Tuscaloosa, 12 Ala. App. 599, 67 South. 778; Rosenberg v. Selma, 168 Ala. 195, 52 South. 742.

[2] We are also of the opinion that the court ruled correctly in holding that the evidence adduced upon this trial relative to the. passage and publication of the ordinance in question was sufficient to meet the rules of evidence # and the law governing the validity of the ordinances of municipal corporations, and the burden of proof resting upon the municipality in an action for a violation of such ordinance. The rules in this respect have been so often announced there appears no necessity here of restating these rules. Little v. City of Attalla, 4 Ala. App. 289, 58 South. 949; Bell v. Town of Jonesboro, 3 Ala. App. 652, 57 South. 138; Clark v. Town of Uniontown, 4 Ala. App. 264, 58 South. 725.

This cause was tried by the court without a jury. Under the usual rule we will not disturb the judgment rendered.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The evidence ill this case, without dispute, disclosed that the appellant was an independent cotton buyer, and did engage in the business of a cotton buyer in the city of Huntsville during the period of time covered by the complaint; and, further, that he so engaged in said business of a cotton buyer without having first paid for and taken out a license, so to do, as required by the license ordinance of said city of Huntsville.

The material questions, therefore, presented by this appeal, are: (1) The sufficiency of the complaint or affidavit as finally amended; and, (2) the validity of the ordinance in question.

[1] We are of the opinion that the complaint or- affidavit as finally amended was not subject to any of the grounds of demurrer interposed thereto, and that the demurrers were properly overruled. Turner v. Town of *657 Lineville, 2 Ala. App. 454, 56 South. 603; Laue v. Tuscaloosa, 12 Ala. App. 599, 67 South. 778; Rosenberg v. Selma, 168 Ala. 195, 52 South. 742.

[2] We are also of the opinion that the court ruled correctly in holding that the evidence adduced upon this trial relative to the. passage and publication of the ordinance in question was sufficient to meet the rules of evidence # and the law governing the validity of the ordinances of municipal corporations, and the burden of proof resting upon the municipality in an action for a violation of such ordinance. The rules in this respect have been so often announced there appears no necessity here of restating these rules. Little v. City of Attalla, 4 Ala. App. 289, 58 South. 949; Bell v. Town of Jonesboro, 3 Ala. App. 652, 57 South. 138; Clark v. Town of Uniontown, 4 Ala. App. 264, 58 South. 725.

This cause was tried by the court without a jury. Under the usual rule we will not disturb the judgment rendered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 78, 19 Ala. App. 656, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-city-of-huntsville-alactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack