Court Opinion

ID: 9824569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:53:38.993308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:51.277925
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[18] In point 6 on the last page of appellant’s brief, in support of application for rehearing, counsel say:
“There is a question not passed on in the opinion of the court, and not urged in our original brief, namely, assignment No. 1. We submit that Local Acts 1919, p. 12, repealed the former act creating the Albertville branch of the circuit court of Marshall county, and that by the act of 1919 a new court was created. The mere fact that the last act is called an amendment makes no difference. We submit that the following cases are conclusive in this point [citing certain cases], A new court cannot entertain cases brought in an old and abolished court, in the absence of expressi provision *586to that effect. We submit, therefore, that de- ■ fendant’s motion to strike the case from the docket should have been granted.’.’
Under act approved August 18, 1909 (Acts 1909, p. 14), provision is made for a branch of the circuit court of Marshall county, the same to be held at Albertville twice each year. Section 2 of the act provided that the court should have original jurisdiction to try and determine all causes, civil and criminal, arising in certain precincts, and section 9 of the act provided that all causes then pending in the circuit court of Marshall county, where the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of said circuit court at Albertville should be set down for trial at the first term of the circuit court at Albert-ville.
Act approved February 7, 1919 (Local Acts 1919, p. 12), amends the 1909 act, but there is no basis on which the contention, made by appellant, that the 1909 act is repealed and a new court created, can rest.
The 1919 act does amend the 1909 act by more clearly defining the jurisdiction of the court and by providing a method for procuring juries for the court, as well-as in other minor particulars, but the court still remains as a breach of the circuit court of Marshall county.
Appellant’s argument upon this point is probably predicated upon the fact that no section appears in the 1919 act corresponding to section 9 of the 1909 act, by the provisions of which all cases then pending in the circuit cburt of the county which arose in the Albertville district were transferred to the Albertville docket. No clause of that nature was necessary in.the 1919 act, as all cases in the Albertville district were already on the Albertville docket.
The cases cited 'by appellant in this connection hold that where a law is passed, purporting to amend an existing law, and the provisions of the latter are in conflict with the provisions of the former, the former law is repealed by the latter, in so far as the conflict exists.
There is no ground for this line of argument in this case, as the 1919 act does not conflict with the 1909 act in any particular, so far as the creation of this wing of the court in 1909 and its continued existence as such up to the present time is concerned.
• “A repeal is properly defined to be ‘the abrogation or destruction of- a law by a legislative act.’ Amendment in legislation is ‘an alteration or change of something proposed in a bill or established as law.’ Bouv. Dictionary.” State, etc., v. Hubbard, 148 Ala. 391, pp. 394-395, 41 South. 903, 905.
' The 1919 act does not in any sense destroy or abrogate the 1909 act, but merely makes certain changes in the 1909 act. However, •no change is even made so far as the existence of the court is concerned.
[19] Charge 23 was substantially covered by given written charge 10 — besides the court will not be put in error for refusing a charge which is not predicated on some phase oí the evidence.
The application for rehearing is overruled,