Town of Warrior v. Blaylock

Supreme Court of Alabama

Town of Warrior v. Blaylock

127 So. 2d 618, 271 Ala. 685, 1961 Ala. LEXIS 334

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 2, 1961

Docket6 Div. 654

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 127 So. 2d 618 (Town of Warrior v. Blaylock) 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

Town of Warrior v. Blaylock, 127 So. 2d 618, 271 Ala. 685, 1961 Ala. LEXIS 334 (Ala. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

COLEMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court, in equity, overruling a demurrer to a bill for declaratory judgment.

The bill alleges that Ordinance No. 210 of the Town of Warrior is violative of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama and prays for a declaration that said ordinance is violative of said Constitutions.

This court has held that under § 166, Title 7, Code 1940, in a declaratory proceeding which involves the validity of á municipal ordinance, if the ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general of the state must be served with a copy of the proceedings; and, if the record fails to show service on the attorney general, the court does not acquire jurisdiction and is not authorized to render a decree in such cause. The result is that a decree rendered without such service will not support an appeal and we must take notice of our own want of jurisdiction apparent on the record. Wheeler v. Bullington, 264 Ala. 264, 87 So.2d 27; Bond’s Jewelry Co. v. City of Mobile, 266 Ala. 463, 97 So.2d 582; Busch Jewelry Co. v. City of Bessemer, 266 Ala. 492, 98 So.2d 50; Smith v. Lancaster, 267 Ala. 366, 102 So.2d 1; Cole v. Sylacauga Hospital Board, 269 Ala. 405, 113 So.2d 200.

The complainant appears to be aware of the rule because the bill prays that a copy thereof be sent by registered mail to the attorney general, but we have not found in the record any showing that the attorney general has been served with a copy of the proceedings in any manner. We are not to be understood as intimating that sending a copy of the bill of complaint to the attorney general by mail, registered or otherwise, would constitute sufficient service on him. The statute provides that “the attorney-general of the state shall also be served with a copy * * and does not provide that a copy be sent to him by mail.

Under the cases cited we are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and it must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

COLEMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court, in equity, overruling a demurrer to a bill for declaratory judgment.

The bill alleges that Ordinance No. 210 of the Town of Warrior is violative of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama and prays for a declaration that said ordinance is violative of said Constitutions.

This court has held that under § 166, Title 7, Code 1940, in a declaratory proceeding which involves the validity of á municipal ordinance, if the ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general of the state must be served with a copy of the proceedings; and, if the record fails to show service on the attorney general, the court does not acquire jurisdiction and is not authorized to render a decree in such cause. The result is that a decree rendered without such service will not support an appeal and we must take notice of our own want of jurisdiction apparent on the record. Wheeler v. Bullington, 264 Ala. 264, 87 So.2d 27; Bond’s Jewelry Co. v. City of Mobile, 266 Ala. 463, 97 So.2d 582; Busch Jewelry Co. v. City of Bessemer, 266 Ala. 492, 98 So.2d 50; Smith v. Lancaster, 267 Ala. 366, 102 So.2d 1; Cole v. Sylacauga Hospital Board, 269 Ala. 405, 113 So.2d 200.

The complainant appears to be aware of the rule because the bill prays that a copy thereof be sent by registered mail to the attorney general, but we have not found in the record any showing that the attorney general has been served with a copy of the proceedings in any manner. We are not to be understood as intimating that sending a copy of the bill of complaint to the attorney general by mail, registered or otherwise, would constitute sufficient service on him. The statute provides that “the attorney-general of the state shall also be served with a copy * * and does not provide that a copy be sent to him by mail.

Under the cases cited we are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and it must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 So. 2d 618, 271 Ala. 685, 1961 Ala. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-warrior-v-blaylock-ala-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack