89 So. 717 | Ala. | 1921
The bill was to restrain the city commissioners and chief of police of Birmingham from enforcing an ordinance in regard to moving personal property.
This is not a moot case as is suggested by appellant's counsel, since liability on the injunction is dependent on the successful prosecution of the appeal.
It is insisted that the primary purpose of the bill is that the daily reports required by a void ordinance of those moving certain personal property, as applied to the corporation of which complainant is the president and general manager, in the due operation of its transfer business, impaired complainant's right of property in that it would require large expenditures of money and unnecessary delays to comply with the ordinance which amounted to an unwarranted invasion and destruction of his property rights. Comm. of Mobile v. Orr,
In this jurisdiction we have adhered to the rule that equity will not interfere with the enforcement of criminal law or check the activities of prosecuting officials when the injury inflicted or threatened is merely the vexation of arrest and punishment of complainant — leaving such complainant free to litigate the question of unconstitutionality of the statute or ordinance, construction or application thereof, in the defense at the trial for its violation. Burnett v. Craig,
However, in a proper case and where required to prevent irreparable injury, property right may be asserted and protected within the exception to the rule recognized in Mobile v. Orr.
The sufficiency of the instant bill was challenged by the general demurrer, and sustained by the trial court. All amendable defects being treated as made, no reversible error was committed, if it be conceded (without deciding that the ordinance was an excess of the exercise of the police powers of the city) that the ordinance was unconstitutional and void. No such property rights are destroyed or impaired, as shown by the averments of the bill, as to bring it within the exception to the general rule to which we have adverted.
According to the allegations of the bill, appellant is the president, majority stockholder, and active officer or agent of the Harris Transfer Warehouse Company, a corporation authorized to conduct a transfer business in the city of Birmingham. The prosecutions initiated and threatened, as in the bill averred, were against said Harris for the violation of the ordinance, by virtue of the fact that he was the executive head or agent of the corporation violating the ordinance. That a prosecution may be maintained against an agent of a corporation for the criminal violation of a statute or ordinance was announced in Williams v. Talladega,
The bill is without equity. The decree of the circuit court, in equity, is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.