Court Opinion

ID: 9689782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:46:51.202886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:52.209462
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
SIMPSON, Justice.
Counsel for appellant seem to apprehend that we have departed from the rule that a suit against a state agent in his representative capacity, such as State Highway Director, is a suit against the state which is forbidden by the Constitution. Attention is directed to the fact that, by amendment on the part of complainants, appellees, and allowance by the trial court,. the suit was “against him (appellant) in his representative capacity as Highway Director.” Cases which it is argued, we have ignored, are the following: Barlowe v. Employers Insurance Co., 237 Ala. 665, 188 So. 896; State Docks Commission v. Barnes, 225 Ala. 403, 143 So. 581; Dunn Construction Co. v. State Board of Adjustment, 234 Ala. 372, 175 So. 383; State Tax Commission v. Commercial Realty Co., 236 Ala. 358, 182 So. 31, among others. None of these cases is analogous to the case at bar, and nothing held by us in this case in anywise militates- against the pronouncements in those cases. Mere designation of appellant “as highway director” does not make the suit one against the state or the State Highway Commission which is the agency through which the state acts. The bill alleges an unauthorized procedure on the part of appellant — the taking of private property in violation of the owners’ Constitutional right of compensation. Though the alleged taking was for the benefit of the state, such action, as alleged, was without authority of law. Even the state could not authorize an unlawful taking.
The fact that the relief sought is by way of injunction rather than by mandamus or some other remedy is immaterial. Any form of action amounting to one against the state is forbidden, injunction no more nor less than any other. If the performance of official duty may be compelled by mandamus, — as we have held in a wide range of cases, — we can conceive of no reason why the performance of an unauthorized or unlawful act by an official might not be enjoined.
As pointed out originally, we here deal with the allegations of a bill in equity which, on demurrer, we take as true. With the terms of a final decree, after due submission on pleading and proof, we are not here concerned. We are not persuaded that our original opinion is subject to the objections raised. We adhere thereto.
Opinion extended and application for rehearing overruled.
GOODWYN, MERRILL and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.