Court Opinion

ID: 9825314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:35:11.728518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:41.227308
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Upon a careful consideration of brief of counsel for appellant on application for rehearing it may be that we did not make ourselves entirely clear in the opinion which has been rendered. Counsel strenuously insist that we have overlooked the principle of law that municipal governments speak only through their minutes, We are cited to Perryman v. Greenville, 51 Ala. 507; City of Greenville v. Greenville Water Works Co., 125 Ala. 625, 643, 27 So. 764; Crenshaw County v. Sikes, 113 Ala. 626, 628, 21 So. 135; Garner v. State, 229 Ala. 6, 158 So. 546; Coleman v. Town of Hartford, 157 Ala. 550, 47 So. 594, among others. We have not, as appellant appears to assume, overlooked these decision's.
We reemphasize that on former appeal we found no valid objection to the ordinance adopted by the city commission. It was there held that the ordinance was presumptively valid “because appropriate offices for use in the administration and operation of the hospital will be construed tc mean offices allowed by law, there being nothing in the ordinance to show the contrary.” We pointed out, however, that the, bill charged that the contract made in pursuance to the ordinance called for a doctors’ building which would not be authorized by law if in fact the building was for commercial purposes. Referring again to the averments of the bill in this respect we added that “the contract purports to be void because it appears to be beyond the pale of corporate authority.” The decree was reversed in order that the true nature of the work as contemplated under the contract might be ascertained.
Upon the trial after reversal here much testimony was taken to the effect that the building to be erected did not depart from the ordinance but was appropriate for hospital purposes as authorized therein and of consequence was within the “pale of corporate authority”. The trial court so held and upon review we have given that evidence most careful study and have reached the conclusion that the decree rendered was justified by the proof.
Though We feel that what was said in the original opinion should suffice, yet out of regard to the earnest insistence of counsel on rehearing, we consider it appropriate to, make their brief response.
It results, therefore, that in our view the decision reached is correct and the applica*482tion for rehearing should be denied. It is so ordered.
Application overruled.
GARDNER, C. J., and FOSTER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.