KENDRICK v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

6 Div. 344.

Attorney(S)

W. Emmett Perry, of Birmingham, for appellant. The title of the act is not broad enough to include all the provisions of the act, and same violates section 45 of the Constitution. Wood v. McClure, 209 Ala. 523, 96 So. 577; State v. Smith, 187 Ala. 411, 65 So. 942; Ballentyne v. Wickersham, 75 Ala. 533; Ex parte Cowert, 92 Ala. 94, 9 So. 225; Yahn v. Merritt, 117 Ala. 485, 23 So. 71; Ex parte Reynolds, 87 Ala. 138, 6 So. 335; Sanders v. Commrs., 117 Ala. 543, 23 So. 788; Black v. State, 144 Ala. 92, 40 So. 611. The act violates section 43 of the Constitution, in that it is an usurpation of judicial power by the Legislature. Allgood v. Sloss Co., 196 Ala. 500, 71 So. 724. It deprives persons of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, in violation of section 6 of the Constitution of Alabama, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. State v. Skinner, 20 Ala. App. 204, 101 So. 327; State v. Goldstein, 207 Ala. 569, 93 So. 308; McLendon v. State, 179 Ala. 54, 60 So. 392, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 691. It denies to citizens equal civil and political rights, in violation of section 1 of the Constitution. State v. Goldstein, supra; In re Dorsey, 7 Port. 293; McLendon v. State, supra. It is violative of section 22 of the Constitution, in that it grants special privileges and immunities to certain classes of citizens. McLendon v. State, supra; State v. Goldstein, supra. It impairs and denies rights retained by the people in adopting the Constitution. Const. 1901, § 36. Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and W. M. Rayburn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. W. Marvin Woodall, of Birmingham, amicus curiæ. The act offends neither the State nor Federal Constitution, and is valid. McCaskell v. State, 53 Ala. 510; Brooks v. State, 88 Ala. 122, 6 So. 902; In re Dorsey, 7 Port. 295; 6 C.J. 569; In re Applicants for License, 143 N.C. 1, 55 S.E. 635, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 288, 10 Ann. Cas. 187; Bradwell v. Ill., 16 Wall. 130, 21 L.Ed. 442; State v. Rossman, 53 Wn. 1, 101 P. 357, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 821, 17 Ann. Cas. 625; Matter of Co-op. L. Co., 198 N.Y. 479, 92 N.E. 15, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 55, 139 Am. St. Rep. 839, 19 Ann. Cas. 879; Montreal Bar v. Sprague's Agcy., 25 Quebec S.Ct. 383; St. Bd. v. Cronk, 157 La. 321, 102 So. 415; Dent v. W. Va., 129 U.S. 114, 9 S.Ct. 231, 32 L.Ed. 623; Wideman v. State, 20 Ala. App. 422, 104 So. 438; Id., 213 Ala. 170, 104 So. 440; Harris v. State, 215 Ala. 56, 109 So. 291; Robinson v. State, 212 Ala. 459, 102 So. 693; Cummings v. State, 214 Ala. 209, 106 So. 852; R. R. Comm. v. A. G. S., 185 Ala. 354, 64 So. 13, L.R.A. 1915D, 98; Davidson v. Phelps, 214 Ala. 236, 107 So. 86; In re Duncan, 83 S.C. 186, 65 S.E. 210, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 750, 18 Ann. Cas. 657; People v. Lower, 251 Ill. 527, 96 N.E. 346, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1203; Weed v. Bergh, 141 Wis. 569, 124 N.W. 664, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1217; State v. Skinner, 20 Ala. App. 204, 101 So. 327; Lindsay v. U.S. S. L. Co., 120 Ala. 156, 24 So. 171, 42 L.R.A. 783; Cousins v. State, 50 Ala. 113, 20 Am. Rep. 290. A section of the Code may be amended by reference to the section number only, when the subject-matter of the amendment is germane to the original section. Smith v. Birmingham R. Co., 208 Ala. 114, 94 So. 117; State v. Smith, 187 Ala. 411, 65 So. 942; McCord v. Bridges, 211 Ala. 295, 100 So. 469; Board of Rev. v. Hewitt, 206 Ala. 405, 90 So. 781; Dodd v. Commr's Ct., 203 Ala. 271, 82 So. 521; Hagan v. State, 207 Ala. 514, 93 So. 600; Davidson v. Phelps, 214 Ala. 236, 107 So. 86; Ex parte Johnson, 203 Ala. 579, 84 So. 803; Thomas v. State, 200 Ala. 661, 77 So. 35; Ham v. State, 156 Ala. 645, 47 So. 126.

Judges

PER CURIAM. PER CURlAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

KENDRICK v. STATE.

PER CURIAM.

This court has considered this case, sitting en banc, giving careful attention to the points presented and apparent on the record. As appears from the agreed statement of facts upon which the case was tried in the lower court, the sole, decisive issue, involved is the constitutionality, vel non, of the act of the Legislature of Alabama approved September 7, 1927 (Gen. Acts Ala. 1927, p. 669). We are of the opinion that said act is not subject to any of the grounds of unconstitutionality urged against it, and is, in all respects, a valid expression of the legislative will, as contained therein.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

PER CURlAM.

Reversed and rendered, on authority of Kendrick v. State, 218 Ala. 277, 120 So. 142.

KENDRICK v. STATE.

Comments