Case Title: Bond's Jewelry Company v. City of Mobile

Citation: 97 So. 2d 582

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1957-10-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
97 So. 2d 582 (1957)
BOND'S JEWELRY COMPANY, Inc.
v.
CITY OF MOBILE.
1 Div. 618.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 24, 1957.
*583 Chris C. Delaney, Mobile, for appellant.
Vincent F. Kilborn and Fred Collins, Mobile, for appellee.
LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.
This is a declaratory judgment action to test the constitutionality of Section 766, as amended, of Article 2 of Chapter 73 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Mobile of 1947.
The ordinance in question, in substance, prohibits the sale or disposition at auction within the City of Mobile any gold, silver, plated ware, precious stones, watches, clocks, jewelry, bric-a-brac, china or glassware during the months of November and December.
The bill avers:
Section 166 of Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, provides as follows:
At the threshold, we are met with the fact that the record before us fails to disclose a compliance with the provisions of Section 166, Title 7, supra.
Under the holding of this court in Wheeler v. Bullington, 264 Ala. 264, 87 So. 2d 27, 29, the allegations of the bill in the instant case require service of "a copy of the proceeding" on the Attorney General.
In Wheeler v. Bullington, supra, it was held:
*584 It is clear, therefore, that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction to render the decree appealed from, and said decree is void. The absence of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record.
A void decree will not support an appeal; this court can acquire no jurisdiction on such an appeal even by consent of the parties; it must take notice of its own want of jurisdiction apparent on the record. Craig v. Root, 247 Ala. 479, 484, 25 So. 2d 147, 152; 2 Ala.Dig., Appeal and Error, 23, and authorities there cited.
The decree of the lower court being void on its face, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, and the same must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
LAWSON, MERRILL and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.