130 So. 173 | Ala. | 1930
While we are in accord with the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in view of the argument of counsel, we deem it advisable to make some additional observations.
We may add that the principle affirming certiorari as a method of review in this nature of case, as stated in Decatur v. Brock,
On the merits of the question involved, the opinion of the Court of Appeals relies on the authority of Pierce v. Huntsville,
Besides, we may add, since that opinion was published, the several sections of the law, as then in existence have been codified and readopted without change in the respect under consideration. This is a well-understood legislative adoption of that meaning as a part of the statutes themselves. We are thereby concluded by that legal status as expressive of the will of the Legislature. Since the adoption of the Code, this court has given further consideration to the general subject in a manner not at all contrary to the views we are now approving. Van Antwerp v. Board of Com'rs,
We repeat, therefore, that in our judgment the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the case of Pierce v. Huntsville, supra, is conclusive of the contention of petitioner, and the petition is denied.
Writ denied.
ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.