Case ID: ala_54/html/0034-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRICKELL, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hart et al. v. Floyd et al.
    
    
      Bill in Eqwity to enjoin Collection of Tax, and to cancel Bonds issued in Aid of Railroads.
    
    1. Stwe decisis. — A solemn adjudication by this court upon a question of constitutional law, supporting the action of co-ordinate departments of the government, and involving matters of general importance and interest to the entire people of the State, upon which credit may have been extended and contracts made, can not be disturbed, unless for cogent reasons, and on the clearest conviction of error.
    2. Case adhered to. —The court declines to depart from the decision in Meparte Selma & Gulf Bail Boad Company, 45 Ala. 696.
    Appeal from Chancery Court of Barbour.
    Heard before Hon. B. B. McCraw.
    The bill in this case was filed by appellants in behalf of themselves, and all other tax-payers of the county, to enjoin the collection of a tax levied to pay interest on certain bonds issued by the county of Barbour, in aid of the Yicksburg <fc Brunswick Rail Road Company, and to have said bonds canceled, <fec. The chancellor dismissed the bill for want of equity.
    Pugh, Wood & Dent, for appellants.
    Shorter & Brother, and D. M. Seals, contra„
   BRICKELL, C. J.

The statute, approved December 31, 1868, entitled “An act to authorize the several counties and towns and cities of the State of Alabama to subscribe to the capital stock of such rail roads throughout the State as they may consider most conducive to their respective interests,” was, with an exception of the proviso to the seventeenth section, pronounced by a majority of this court, constitutional, at the June term, 1871, after able and exhaustive arguments by counsel, and deliberate consideration and examination by the court.—Ex-parte Selma & Gulf Rail Road Company, 45 Ala. 696. If we entertained grave doubts of the correctness of tbis adjudication, and would have reached a different conclusion, we would feel bound to follow it. A solemn adjudication upon a question of constitutional law, supporting tbe action of tbe co-ordinate departments of tbe government, and involving matters of general importance and interest to tbe entire people of tbe State, on which credit may have been extended, and contracts made, cannot be disturbed, unless for cogent reasons, and upon the clearest convictions of error.

Tbe bill proposes to renew tbe controversy tbis decision closed. It is without equity, if that decision is observed. We feel bound to adhere to it, and must affirm tbe decree of "the chancellor.