Title: City of Huntsville v. Miller

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

127 So. 2d 606 (1961)
CITY OF HUNTSVILLE
v.
E. P. MILLER et al.
8 Div. 917.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 16, 1958.
Rehearing Denied March 2, 1961.
*607 Smith, Johnston & Butler, Huntsville, for appellant.
Watts, Salmon & Roberts, Huntsville, for appellees.
GOODWYN, Justice.
Complainants, appellees here, filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court of Madison County, in equity, against the City of Huntsville, appellant here, seeking to enjoin, as a nuisance, the collection by said City of surface waters in the vicinity of complainants' lands and depositing such waters on said lands, and also seeking damages to the lands resulting therefrom. In its final decree, after the taking of testimony ore tenus, the trial court denied injunctive relief but awarded damages to complainants. The City appeals from that decree.
At the threshold, we are confronted with a jurisdictional question: Can a court of equity, after denying all equitable relief sought in a cause, retain jurisdiction and grant relief available at law? Our cases hold that it cannot; that it is a matter of jurisdiction which this court must notice even though no issue on the point is made by the parties.
It is thus stated in Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235, 238, 118 So. 271, 274:
The rule is stated in Dickinson v. Bradford, 59 Ala. 581, 586, 31 Am.Rep. 23, as follows:
The rule has been adhered to consistently in an unbroken line of cases. See: McCurdy v. Samples, 262 Ala. 485, 488-489, 80 So. 2d 224; Pritchett v. Wade, 261 Ala. 156, 162, 73 So. 2d 533; Comer v. Limbaugh, 256 Ala. 655, 660, 57 So. 2d 72; Lane v. Roma Lumber Co., 234 Ala. 551, 553, 176 So. 283; McDowell v. Herren, 219 Ala. 370, 371, 122 So. 336; Bromberg v. Eugenotto Construction Co., 158 Ala. 323, 48 So. 60, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 1175; Wilson's Adm'r v. Holt, 91 Ala. 204, 212, 8 So. 794; Dickinson v. Bradford, 59 Ala. 581, 586, supra; Hause v. Hause, 57 Ala. 262, 266; Pond v. Lockwood, 8 Ala. 669, 677.
In 1 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, 5th Ed., § 237d, p. 436, the author states:
The fact that the parties have raised no question concerning jurisdiction, either in the trial court or here, and invite the court to consider the case on its merits, is not controlling. Lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived or supplied by consent of the parties. Wilkinson v. Henry, 221 Ala. 254, 256, 128 So. 362, 364, 70 A.L.R. 712. In that case it was said:
And it has been said that "jurisdiction of the subject-matter cannot be conferred upon any court by estoppel, or even by affirmative agreement." Henderson v. Hall, 134 Ala. 455, 506, 32 So. 840, 852, 63 L.R.A. 673. Cf. Randolph v. Randolph, 245 Ala. 689, 693, 18 So. 2d 555. Even though the parties do not raise the issue, the trial court should dismiss the bill at the hearing if a proper case for equitable relief is not made out or transfer the cause to the law side of the court if there is an adequate remedy at law. Code 1940, Tit. 13, § 149.
It is to be noted that there is no cross-assignment of error questioning the trial court's denial of equitable relief. Hence, no question on that score is presented for review.
We must consider, ex mero motu, questions of jurisdiction; and where a judgment appealed from is void for want of jurisdiction we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. Alabama Public Service Commission v. McGill, 260 Ala. 361, 362, 71 So. 2d 12; Mitchell v. Hammond, 252 Ala. 81, 84, 39 So. 2d 582; Craig v. Root, 247 Ala. 479, 484, 25 So. 2d 147; Freeman v. Swan, 22 Ala. 106, 115; Carter v. Hinkle, 13 Ala. 529, 533; Wyatt v. Judge, 7 Port. 37, 38-40; 5 C.J.S. Appeal & Error, §§ 1477, 1480, pp. 740, 747. From the early case of Wyatt v. Judge, supra, is the following:
The trial court having determined that complainants were not entitled to equitable relief it was without jurisdiction to award damages to complainants. Accordingly, the decree appealed from is void and the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
GOODWYN, Justice.
We placed the case on the rehearing docket for the purpose of considering the applicability of the following cases, viz.: Mobile County v. Barnes-Creary Supply Co., 225 Ala. 127, 129, 142 So. 72, and McGowin v. City of Mobile, 241 Ala. 576, 578, 4 So. 2d 161.
In those cases it was held that equity had jurisdiction to enjoin a proposed taking of or injury to land without just compensation being first paid therefor as required by § 235, Constitution 1901. The basis for such holding is thus stated in Mobile County v. Barnes-Creary Supply Co., supra [225 Ala. 127, 142 So. 73]:
There is, however, a material distinction between those cases and the one now before us. Here, the injury to complainants' land had already occurred, thus rendering the stated principle inapposite for that reason, if for no other.
Those cases also hold that "the equity of the bill being established, a court of equity, if the enforcement of such injunctive relief appears impracticable or unjust, has the power to so mold its decree as to award damages in lieu of such relief." So, the question is, Does the bill have equity on some other ground? In other words, to state the question more specifically, Is the maintenance by the City of an already existing system for the drainage of surface waters which causes injury or damage to another's land, subject to abatement in equity? A negative answer to this question is found in the following from Harris v. Town of Tarrant City, 221 Ala. 558, 560, 130 So. 83, 85:
The last two sentences of the foregoing have reference to the following from the same case, viz.:
In City of Birmingham v. Flowers, 224 Ala. 279, 281, 140 So. 353, 354, reference is made to the case of Harris v. Town of Tarrant City, supra, as drawing "the same distinction that we have attempted in the present opinion; that is, if the improvement is of a permanent character and not abatable as a nuisance, the injury thereby done should be assessed in solido. * * *"
See also, Fricke v. City of Guntersville, 251 Ala. 63, 64, 36 So. 2d 321, 322, from which we quote the following:
It is to be noted that the trial court concluded that the complaint does not charge the city with negligence in the construction or maintenance of the drainage system emptying the surface waters into the Wellman ditch running through complainants' property.
See, also, Branyon v. Kirk, 238 Ala. 321, 326, 191 So. 345, 349, supra, where it was said:
We forego a discussion of the evidence "for fear its consideration on another trial may be prejudiced, however careful the language of discussion." Holderfield v. Deen, 269 Ala. 260, 262, 112 So. 2d 448, 450; Frost v. Johnson, 256 Ala. 383, 386-387, 54 So. 2d 897; German-American Wholesale Optical Co. v. Rosen, 233 Ala. 105, 170 So. 211; Parker v. Hayes Lumber Co., 221 Ala. 73, 127 So. 504.
It is our view that the bill is not one calling for equitable relief and that the equity court was without jurisdiction to award damages to complainants. See § 149, Tit. 13, Code 1940.
Rehearing denied.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.