Court Opinion

ID: 9679153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:42:35.176773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:10.749499
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
CATES, Judge.
The City has cited us to Stinson v. Birmingham, 31 Ala.App. 577, 20 So.2d 113; Brooks v. Birmingham, 31 Ala.App. 579, 20 So.2d 115, and Ford v. Birmingham, 35 Ala.App. 371, 47 So.2d 287, for the proposition that these cases modify the rule we used here.
Our courts take judicial notice of Birmingham ordinances by statutory fiat. Section 7, Act No. 257, approved August 20, 1915 (Gen.Acts 1915, p. 294, at 297), and Act No. 193, approved June 18, 1943 (Gen.Acts 1943, p. 183). In Smiley v. Birmingham, 255 Ala. 604, 52 So.2d 710, Brown, J., apparently considered Code 1940, T. 15, § 243 (dispensing, in criminal causes, with the need for alleging matters within judicial notice) applied to a complaint charging a breach of the Birmingham City Code.
Therefore, we do not think these three cases, under statutes applying only to Birmingham, afford any precedent to affirm.
Code 1940, T. 13, § 346, operates in the inferior court and relates to its jurisdiction to support an appeal to a circuit court, or, as here, to a court of equivalent jurisdiction. Ex parte McElroy, 241 Ala. 554, 4 So.2d 437. Once a de novo appeal is filed, the only office of § 346 is to prevent a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in the first court.
Application overruled.