Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Brunson v. Eagerton

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 18, 1924No. 4 Div. 173PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

The suit is quo warranto to test the validity of the act of 1923. Local Acts 1923, p. 242.

The provisions of section 4% of the act are proper, cognate, and incidental to the general purpose of the act as expressed in its title, are referable to the title, and the act is not offensive to provisions of section 45 of the Constitution. The county is divided into two divisions of the circuit court held by law at Elba and Enterprise, respectively. It was a necessary provision to facilitate the drawing of juñes, as provided by law, by the judge holding that court in the respective divisions. Leonard…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Covington v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
  2. Ham v. State ex rel. BuckSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
  3. Leonard v. LyonsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  4. Law v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Brunson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  2. Opinion of the JusticesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983
  3. Opinion of the JusticesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API