Court Opinion

ID: 9688249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:41:44.539174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:36.875254
License: Public Domain

LAWSON, Justice,
dissenting.
In my opinion, the case of City of Birmingham v. Graham, 202 Ala. 202, 79 So. 574, is decisive of all the questions presented on this appeal.
As I understand the opinion in that case, this court held that under the plain, clear language of the 1872 deed from Mr. Worthington and wife to the Elyton Land Company, the City of Birmingham, as a successor to the Elyton Land Company, has the right to open the strip of land as a part of Thirty-First street “at any time” it “may think proper to open the same pursuant to the plan of said street and avenues theretofore platted by that company, on payment in cash the assessed values of the dwelling and outhouses situated therein.”
I construe the effect of the holding of the majority to be that the City may be forced to pay for the improvements, although it is not ready to open the strip of land as a public street, or lose its rights under the said 1872 deed. In my opinion, such holding is diametrically opposed to the holding in City of Birmingham v. Graham, supra, which, as before indicated, in my opinion is res adjudicata of all questions presented. Therefore, I am constrained to dissent.
LIVINGSTON, J, concurs in this view.