The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1904-06-07
JUDGE SAYRE DECIDES
INJUNCTION AGAINST CITIZENS
COMPANY DISSOLVED.
New Light Organisation Wins First
skirmish In Courts with the
Old Corporatfon--Opinion
OF, the Judge.

The temporary injunction restraining
the Citizens Light, Heat. and Power
Company from stringing It's wires on
Dexter Avenue was dissolved yester.
day by Judge A. D. Sayre of the City
Court of Montgomery. although Judge
Sayre held that the complaint of the
Montgomery Light and Water Power
Company was not without equity.
This. the first skirmlsh in the courts
between the two competing light com
panies of Montgomery resulted in q
temporary victory for the Citizens
Company.
The Montgomery Company secured a
temporary Injunction restraining tht
Citizens Company from stringing its
wires on Dexter Avenue. on the ground
| that 1t interfered with its business and
further that the resolution under which
the Citizens Company was striging Its
wires was illegally passed by the City
Council.
The Citizens Company moved to dis.
miss the bill for want of equity which
Judge Sayre overruled.
1t is interesting to observe that Judge
Sayre holds that too much stress has
been laid on the claim OF illegality Of
the Councils action because of the
votes of certain aldermen who are In.
terested in the Citizens Company. He
points out that the resolution had not
been signed by the Mayor and conse-
quently was without the range of con-
sideration.
Judge sayre wrote the following
For the information OF the parties
and their counsel, L indicate my views
of the case as follows:
While 1t seems to be well settled
that an interlocutory injunction may
not be prppped up by subsequent
amendment yet see no reason why n
complainant should not be permitted
to prepare for Anal hearing by proper
amendment. without prejudice to his
preliminary injunction, so long as the
amendment constitutes no Departure
from the allegation or the purpose OF
the original bill.
There is equity in the original bill
1t appears to me that much of ii is de-
voted to unnecessary complaints about
the resolution passed by the City Coun.
ell Of Montgomery, on May 30th, 1904,
which, IL intended to be permanent In
it's operation. cannot be SO until it re-
ceives the Mayors Approval; and this.
for aught that appears, 1t may never
receive. In other respects the bill
fails to drive to the point. Neverthe-
less. 1t does show that the defendant.
in violation of provision of its fran
chise from the city, inserted there foG
the protection OF the property of the
complainant. is about to put into use
wires erected in such manner as to por-
tend irreparable injuries to the proper
ty and business of the complainant.
This. in my opinion, gives equity to tho
bill in its original shape. birmingham
Traction Co. VS.. Southern Bell Tel. Co.
119 Ala. 144). There Is room for tie
t-R ta n1N
ton to the effect, that the resolution
complained of was intended to author
ize, at least temporarily. the use By
defendant of it's wires in violation OF
the proviso of it's franchise to the In
jury of the complainant. II this threat
ened injury is material and irreparable,
aprehend the passage of the resolu-
ton, whether intended to be permanent
or temporary, would afford no warrant
for II.
Both the original and amended bills,
however, need amendment in at least
one respect. The allegation is of Ia
reparable injury, but 1t is entirely gem
eraL 1t Is nothing more than the bare
conclusion of the pleader. 1T, affords
no information as to how or why. or TO
what extent, injury will result to COM
pIainant. 1t may be irreparable. but
the court must know the particulars.
and draw it's own conclusion. Injuries
may be in a sense irreparable. and yet
neither overwhelming nor very seri-
GUS This is a matter of public con-
Germ. I suppose, and mere inconven
ience or. trihIng injury to the complain
ant will not be allowed to stand In the
way of a public utility. For this de-
feet in the bill, now think the inter-
locutory injunction was improvidenlly
granted, and must now be dissolved.
For the same reason the demurrer to
the amended bill must be sustained.
I'm view of the public nature of the
function performed by both the com
pIainant and the defendant. think tn }
dissolution of the injunction ought to
he without prejudice to compIainants
right at any time in advance of anal
submission, to move for reinstatement
whenever the practical operation of tn ;
defendants lines shall demonstrate the
certainty of injury to complained
Gam. Tel Co. VS. Morgan County Tel
Co. SO s. Rep. 17s) or when complaint
ant may be prepared. on a bill properly
amended. to maintain its contention by
the affidaYits of witnesses. more famil-
lar with electricity and it's appliances
than the court is required TO be I'll
A. BLR. r. r. Co. v. Birmingham r. Il.
& f Co, 1I3 Ala. $500.
THE Register will enroll the follow
ing degree:
This cause coming on to be heard
at this term, the complainant offered to
amend it's original bill as shown by the
amendment now marked fled, without
.,ra1ndfca. 70 tha fnf1nctfon harAtofora