The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-02-16
Another Important Case

Probably the most important case, in the opinion of lawyers, that the su- preme court has acted upon for some time Is that which determines the right of a municipality to abrogate the fran chise of public service corporations The case in question on which the court has just acted, and on which the supreme court reverses itself in for mer decision, is that of New Decatur vs. the American Telephone and Tele- graph company. which was appealed from the Morgan law and equity court
 The question al issue in this case was whether or not the city of New Decatur had the right to take away from the American Telephone and Tel egraph company the franchise grant ing the right to construct, operate and maintain line of telephone and tele- graph on the streets of the city.
 This franchise was originally grant ed by the city council of New De- catur, but was later abrogated, the city desiring to take back it's fran chise. The telephone and telegraph company immediately secured an in- junction from the law and equity court of Morgan county restraining the city from interfering with the construction of it's lines in the city.
 Reverses Lower Court
 The case was taken to the supreme court and that tribunal reversed the
 lower court deciding that the city had right to withdraw It's franchise. On an application for rehearine g the court reversed itself and affirmed the decision of the lower tribunal maintaining that the city would have no right to abrogate company's franchise unless it were proven tha; the corporation was a public nuisance and that to prove that such was a
 public nuisance it would be necessary
 to have the question decided in the
 courts
 The fine point in law involved in the case was the distinction between a per petual franchise and an exclusive fran chise, this question not having been considered in the former decision of the ! court. The opinion in the case was written by Judge Sayre. who at first dissented.
 Other applications for rehearing act cd upon by the supreme court are as follows
 Other Decisions | Lewis I. Brannan vs. Mary Henry ap- | peal from Mobile circuit court; applica- l ton overruled and opinion modified Blacksher company ct al. vs Mary S Northrup appeal from Monroe law ano equity court; application overruled. Alabama Chemical company Ns. Julius D. Phelps, appeal from Montgomery cir.
 cuit court; application overuled. The county of Montgomery vs. O. ! Pruett, appeal from Montgomery city court: application overruled. Western Union Telegraph company vs Mrs. G. P. North, appeal from Montgom
 cry circuit court; application overruled. w. r. Norsworth ct al. Vs. J. l.. Will | loughby ct al, appeal from Coffee chan eery court; application overruled. T. W. Shows vs. Steiner, Lobman S
 Frank, appeal from Crenshaw clrcui court; application overruled. A. P Loveman & Co. vs. Alabama, Ten nessee and Northern Railroad company l appeal from Pickens circuit court; appli cation overruled.
 H. M. Harton vs. w. NJ. Little ct al
 appeal from Jefferson chancery court; ap 1 plication overruled.
 l Village Briggs vs. Tennessee Coal Irol | and Railroad company, appeal from. Bir mingham city court argued and submit ted with sixth division, 2Sl; application | oNerruled.
 1 Empire Realty company ct al. vs. II. M | Harton appeal from Jefferson chancer, court; application overruled. I Fl. M. Harton vs. F.. F. Enslen ct al appeal from Jefferson chancery court; ap i picaton oyerrued.
 l Continental Casualty company vs. Lul; | Ogburn, appeal from Jefferson circul court: application oyerruled. 1 Village Briggs vs. Tennessee Coal Irol
 and Railroad company, appeal from Dir iningham city court; argued and submit tted with Sixth division, 126: application overrued.
 | Thomas H. Wildman vs Evans Bros | Construction company. appeal from Bir
 mingham city court; application over ruled.
 | Building company ct al, appeal iron
 N~1ison chancery court; application over
 ruled.
 ...seb Isaih, alias. e,c.. ys the State q
 Alabama, appeal from Montgomery cit! court; application overruled and opinion modified.sy
 i First National Bank vs J. w Dim l mick. appeal from Montgomery cit, court; application for rehearing granted