Case Title: Corte v. State

Citation: 67 So. 2d 782

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1953-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
67 So. 2d 782 (1953)
CORTE
v.
STATE.
1 Div. 525.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 29, 1953.
Hubert M. Hall, Bay Minette, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and George O. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
CLAYTON, Justice.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree of the circuit court of Baldwin *783 County, in equity, overruling a motion to dissolve, and sustaining a temporary injunction. The appeal is authorized by Sec. 757, Tit. 7 of the Code of Alabama 1940. The bill of complaint alleges in substance that, at the time of filing and for a period of time immediately preceding the filing thereof, appellant, at Loxely, Alabama, was engaged in the business of producing, buying for resale, packing, selling, and shipping, and sold, and shipped from Loxley, Alabama, vegetables of the type and variety governed by the provisions of Act No. 977 of the Legislature of Alabama of 1951, p. 1650, Code 1940, Tit. 2, § 315(9) et seq.; that he did refuse to allow authorized agents or inspectors of the State Commissioner of Agriculture, entrance into the premises of his establishment for the purpose of inspecting and examining packages of vegetables to determine whether said packages of said produce were in compliance with the enforcement provisions of said Act No. 977. The bill further avers that it is necessary for said agents and inspectors to enter said establishment for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of said law, and that, without access to such premises, the Commissioner cannot effectively enforce the provisions of such law, or perform the duties placed upon him by the provisions thereof. The bill alleges further that the conduct of the respondent, in denying the agents or inspectors of the Commissioner access to the premises of appellant, has prevented the Commissioner from enforcing the provisions of said Act No. 977, and that it is necessary and vital to the enforcement of this law that said agents and inspectors enter said establishment, which establishment is used for receiving, buying, packing, selling, and shipping vegetables of the type and variety governed by the provisions of said law, and that complainant has no adequate remedy at law to compel appellant to allow agents or inspectors of the State Commissioner of Agriculture to enter his premises, although they have the legal right so to do.
Act No. 977 of the Legislature of 1951, is in the following language:
The motion to dissolve the temporary injunction challenges the equity of the bill, stated in various ways, and seriously argues for reversal on two grounds. First, that the Commissioner of Agriculture had not taken formal action under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act to require the grading of fruits and vegetables in the area in which appellant's fruits and vegetables were grown. The second point argued by appellant for a reversal of the case, is that the injunction was issued to prevent the commission of an alleged criminal offense, and that the penal provisions of the Act provide an adequate remedy at law.
It is conceded that the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction tests the equity of the bill. Tit. 7, Sec. 1052, Code of Alabama, 1940; Woodward v. State, 173 Ala. 7, 55 So. 506; Fuqua v. Spry Burial Ins. Co., 254 Ala. 189, 47 So. 2d 817.
No question is raised in the pleadings as to the constitutionality of the Act being considered.
As to the first proposition argued by appellant, pertinent provisions of the Act are:
Section 4 of the Act requires that every package of fresh fruits or vegetables grown in Alabama, before same shall be offered for sale, shall be stamped, labeled, or plainly marked with the name and address of the grower, and the grade of fresh fruit and vegetables in the package, * * * in letters not less than ½ inch in height * * *.
Section 6, provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, or transport for sale any fresh fruits and vegetables in any closed package which fails to bear the statement as required in Section 4 of this Act. * * *.
Section 7, provides that the Commissioner of Agriculture, through any designated division of the Department of Agriculture and Industries shall be charged with the enforcement of the provisions of this Act and for that purpose shall have power and authority to: (a) Enter and inspect personally, or through any authorized agent or inspector, every place within the State of Alabama where fresh fruits or vegetables are produced, packed, stored for sale, shipped, offered for sale or sold, and all *786 fresh fruits and vegetables, containers, records and equipment found in any such places * * *.
Section 8, provides that "every person, who by themselves, their agents, or employees, violates any of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall upon conviction thereof be punished as prescribed by law." Following the rule that where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given the meaning therein plainly expressed, we are led to the conclusion that the right of the Commissioner of Agriculture to inspect for compliance with the stamping and labeling provisions of Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Act, became effective upon the passage of the Act by the Legislature and its signing by the Governor, without the necessity of any action by the State Board of Agriculture and Industries or the Commissioner of Agriculture. State v. Praetorians, 226 Ala. 259, 146 So. 411; Abramson v. Hard, 229 Ala. 2, 155 So. 590; State v. Tuscaloosa Building & Loan Ass'n, 230 Ala. 476, 161 So. 530, 99 A.L.R. 1019.
We consider now the proposition that the injunction was issued to prevent the commission of an alleged criminal offense, and that the complainant (appellee) has an adequate remedy at law by criminal prosecution against appellant. This is the truly serious question raised on this appeal. Section 8 of the Act does provide that a violation of any of the provisions of the Act constitutes a misdemeanor, so the first pertinent question which confronts us is whether or not the commission of an alleged criminal act may properly be enjoined. The principle upon which numerous exceptions have since been applied, contained in the early New York case of Attorney General v. Utica Insurance Co., 2 Johns.Ch., N. Y., 371, was expressed by Chancellor Kent as follows:
Our recent cases have restated the general principle as follows: "Ordinarily equity will not enjoin the commission of a crime." Knighton v. Knighton, 252 Ala. 520, 41 So. 2d 172, 175; Try-Me, Bottling Co. v. State, 235 Ala. 207, 178 So. 231; Farrell v. City of Mobile, 229 Ala. 294, 156 So. 635; Pike County Dispensary v. Mayor, etc., Brundidge, 130 Ala. 193, 30 So. 451.
The same principle was stated in the Try-Me Bottling Co. v. State case, supra [235 Ala. 207,178 So. 233], as follows:
However, this court has held in the case of Henley v. Rockett, 243 Ala. 172, 8 So. 2d 852, 853, Mr. Justice Bouldin writing for the court:
citing: Try-Me Bottling Co. v. State, supra, and State v. Ellis, 201 Ala. 295, 78 So. 71, L.R.A.1918D, 816.
Both the above cases of Knighton v. Knighton, and Henley v. Rockett, involved efforts of a wife to obtain injunctive relief against alienation of affections of the husband by another woman. While the issues were different from those in the case now before us, they serve to illustrate the principle that each case for injunctive relief must be considered in the light of the rule *787 that an injunction, whether permanent or temporary, cannot, as a general rule, be sought as a matter of right, but the power to grant or refuse it rests in the sound discretion of the court, under the circumstances and facts of the particular case. 43 C.J.S., Injunctions, § 14, page 420; Shelton v. Shelton, 238 Ala. 489, 192 So. 55; Dean v. Coosa County Lumber Co., 232 Ala. 177, 167 So. 566; Boatwright v. Town of Leighton, 231 Ala. 607, 166 So. 418; City of Mobile v. Farrell, 229 Ala. 582, 158 So. 539, 542.
In Alabama, the early case of State v. Mayor and Aldermen of Mobile, 5 Port. 279, made an exception to the general principle of the case of Attorney General v. Utica Insurance Co., supra, basing its opinion upon the theory that equity might assume jurisdiction in certain cases involving maintenance of a nuisance, quoted in part as follows:
More recently the further exception to the general rule that injunctions may not be decreed to prevent a criminal act has been asserted as "injunction will issue to protect public rights, property, or welfare notwithstanding the acts enjoined may also constitute crimes." 43 C.J.S., Injunctions, § 152, page 764, citing Farrell v. City of Mobile, 229 Ala. 294, 156 So. 635.
"Acts which are a menace to the public health or safety, or, as sometimes stated in greater detail, acts which are dangerous to human life, detrimental to public health, and the occasion of great public inconvenience and damage, may be enjoined." 43 C.J.S., Injunctions, § 124, page 671.
"Usually the purpose of granting an injunction * * * is to protect the public health or welfare". 43 C.J.S., Injunctions, § 124, page 674, citing these cases: Funk Jewelry Co. v. State ex rel. La Prade, 46 Ariz. 348, 50 P.2d 945; State ex rel La Prade v. Smith, 43 Ariz. 131, 29 P.2d 718, 92 A.L.R. 168, reheard 43 Ariz. 343, 31 P.2d 102, 92 A.L.R. 173; Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Pollitt, 258 Ky. 489, 80 S.W.2d 543; Kentucky State Board of Dental Examiners v. Payne, 213 Ky. 382, 281 S.W. 188. The authorities are divided on this question. Comprehensive collations may be found in 40 A.L.R. 1145, et seq., and 91 A.L.R. 316, et seq. Under the exceptions to the general rule that injunction will issue to protect civil or property rights notwithstanding the acts enjoined may also constitute crimes, injunctions have issued to prevent acts in furtherance of a strike which caused great private injury, to prevent the giving or receiving of rebates, to prevent interferences with church property, to prevent maintenance of a bawdy house adjoining complainant's premises and interfering with the use and enjoyment of the latter, to prevent the maintenance of a conspiracy to commit fraudulent acts which will result in the perversion of an election, to prevent the running of a corner on the board of trade by which an exhorbitant and fictitious price is fixed on grain, which acts will result in depriving another of his property, to prevent the serving of liquor by a lodge to its members in violation of an ordinance, and to prevent the use of force and violence to *788 prevent complainant from working land where the result would be that if the land was not planted at that time, no crop could be raised thereon during the season. 43 C.J.S., Injunctions, § 155, pages 766, 767.
The Nebraska cases of State ex rel. Spillman v. Heldt, 115 Neb. 435, 213 N.W. 578, 579, and State ex rel. Sorensen v. Knudtsen, 121 Neb. 270, 236 N.W. 696, are closely analogous to the case before us. Each of those cases was an action brought by the State on the relation of the Attorney General to restain and enjoin the defendants from interfering and preventing agents of the Department of Agriculture from entering upon defendant's premises and examining and testing his cattle for bovine tuberculosis. While the pleadings in those cases were somewhat different from the case being considered, the correctness of injunctive relief was sustained in both of them. Mr. Justice Day, speaking for the court, in the Heldt case, supra, said in part as follows:
We apply the broad rule expressed in 43 C.J.S., Injunctions,§ 152, pages 764-765 and supported by Farrell v. City of Mobile, supra, as follows:
Other points mentioned in appellant's brief are not considered to be significant. The decree of the lower court is affirmed
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.