Stephens v. State ex rel. Ward

Supreme Court of Alabama

Stephens v. State ex rel. Ward

59 So. 2d 69, 257 Ala. 375, 1952 Ala. LEXIS 244

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 22, 1952

Docket6 Div. 388

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 So. 2d 69 (Stephens v. State ex rel. Ward) 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

Stephens v. State ex rel. Ward, 59 So. 2d 69, 257 Ala. 375, 1952 Ala. LEXIS 244 (Ala. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Justice.

The bill in this case seeks the injunction of a liquor nuisance under Article 5, Chapter 3, Title 29, Code, beginning with section 141. A liquor nuisance is defined in section 97, Title 29, Code. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and defendant brought this appeal.

Appellant raised the contention by a general demurrer to the 'bill that the requirements of section 1095, Title 7, Code, were not complied with; and that the allegations of the bill must show its compliance to be free from attack by general demurrer. Reliance is had on the case of Brown v. State ex rel. Wright, 222 Ala. 623, 133 So. 913. But that case and that statute have reference only to the particular nuisance de[376]*376fined in the article of the Code in which section 1095 is set up. The reason for its provisions, as expressed in the Brown case, supra, do not apply to liquor nuisances.

The only other insistence made by appellant is that the description of the property is too vague, uncertain and indefinite. The property alleged to be that on which a liquor nuisance is conducted by defendant is described in the 'bill of complaint as follows:

“Upon the premises and in the building located seven miles south of the City of Tuscaloosa on U. S. Highway 82, commonly known as the University Highway, on the right side thereof, said •building and premises 'being situate between the tracks of the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad and the aforesaid highway, Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, and being the place where said liquor nuisance and unlawful drinking place is conducted and which said premises are adjacent to a small branch or creek to the south. Petitioner avers that the said respondents now occupy the aforesaid premises and building.”

Such a description in a complaint is sufficient to withstand demurrer on those grounds. Bradley v. Ballentine, 246 Ala. 271, 20 So.2d 505; Horn v. Peek, 246 Ala. 241, 20 So.2d 234; Allison v. Owens, 248 Ala. 412, 27 So.2d 785.

We think that the contentions made by appellant are not well supported, and were properly overruled by the trial court.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.

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

FOSTER, Justice.

The bill in this case seeks the injunction of a liquor nuisance under Article 5, Chapter 3, Title 29, Code, beginning with section 141. A liquor nuisance is defined in section 97, Title 29, Code. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and defendant brought this appeal.

Appellant raised the contention by a general demurrer to the 'bill that the requirements of section 1095, Title 7, Code, were not complied with; and that the allegations of the bill must show its compliance to be free from attack by general demurrer. Reliance is had on the case of Brown v. State ex rel. Wright, 222 Ala. 623, 133 So. 913. But that case and that statute have reference only to the particular nuisance de[376]*376fined in the article of the Code in which section 1095 is set up. The reason for its provisions, as expressed in the Brown case, supra, do not apply to liquor nuisances.

The only other insistence made by appellant is that the description of the property is too vague, uncertain and indefinite. The property alleged to be that on which a liquor nuisance is conducted by defendant is described in the 'bill of complaint as follows:

“Upon the premises and in the building located seven miles south of the City of Tuscaloosa on U. S. Highway 82, commonly known as the University Highway, on the right side thereof, said •building and premises 'being situate between the tracks of the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad and the aforesaid highway, Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, and being the place where said liquor nuisance and unlawful drinking place is conducted and which said premises are adjacent to a small branch or creek to the south. Petitioner avers that the said respondents now occupy the aforesaid premises and building.”

Such a description in a complaint is sufficient to withstand demurrer on those grounds. Bradley v. Ballentine, 246 Ala. 271, 20 So.2d 505; Horn v. Peek, 246 Ala. 241, 20 So.2d 234; Allison v. Owens, 248 Ala. 412, 27 So.2d 785.

We think that the contentions made by appellant are not well supported, and were properly overruled by the trial court.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 So. 2d 69, 257 Ala. 375, 1952 Ala. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-state-ex-rel-ward-ala-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack