The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-06-19
DEPOT CASE
 IS SETTLED |. and N, Wins Out in Supreme Court. LAST OF LEE STREET MATTER Court Affirns Decision of Judge
 A. D. Sayre. Holds That Council Had the Right to Make Its Contracts With Com- pany and That "Curative"
 Act Was Constitutional. A
LAST OF LEE STREET MATTER

That the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company as the iesee of the Mobile and Montgomery Railway Com pany can keep its freight depot at the end of Lee Street and that Judge A. D. Sayre of the Montgomery City Court was right in refusing to order the de- pot removed was the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Alabama yesterday an the famous case of the State of Ala barna ex rel Attorney General vs. Lou asvi1le and Nashville Railroad Com ] pany.
 This will probably terminate the lit- l agation on the subject. The higher tribunal seems to uphold on every side the contentious of counsel for the rall- ! road.
 In the opinion written by Justice l Jonathan Haralson, the Court above held with Judge Sayre that by the act of December 10. 1900. the contract was made valid between the city of Mont gomery and the defendant railroad al. lowing the latter to build the depot at what is now the end of Lee Street. If the case of the Louisville and Nash vile had rested only on the contract ordinance, however, it would have fallen.
 What supported the contract was the 1 .tcurative" act of the Legislature ap- proved December 10, 1900, which In ef- feet legalized the grant of the privi- 1ege by Montgomery's Council to the defendant. The Supreme Court held that this act was constitutional and 1t was in the power of the Legislature to give the powers therein conferred.
 Discussing the act of December 10, 1900. Justice Haralson writes:
 'sThe act of 1900. as has been before stated. purported to validate and did validate tall grants. rights. privileges and franchises which the City Council of Montgomery has heretofore granted eff valid) or attempted to grant (ff invalid to any railroad company, which have been accepted and utilized for railroad purposes
 s'Conceding that the contract ordi- nance was Invalid. 1t was certainly an attempt to confer the rights and priv aIeges referred to in it. As was well said by counsel for defendants in ar g1ument, After every refinement of req son has been exhausted. 1t will be im- possible, it seems. to us, for anyone to read the act approved December 10, 1900, in connection with the contract ordinance approved June 20, 1896. and fall to see that the Legislature intend ed to ratify, legalize and confirm the rigat of appellee to occupy and use portion of Lee Street for depot pur- poses. The learned judge in the court below took this view and we think this Court can reach no other conclusion" "
 Also Justice Haralson added:
 ''In Cyc (1024), supported appar- ently by many adJudged cases, it is said. A statute Is valid which ratifies the action of a. municipality or its of- ficers (which action is void because in- formal or dn excess of powers) in do- ing some act, making some contract, contracting some debt, or making some conveyance. provided the Legislature could originally have conferred such power or have dispensed with such for mality.'"