Fitts v. Commission of City of Birmingham
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
ANDERSON, O. J.
The -bill of complaint does not proceed upon the theory that the employment of the respondents Evins and Quinn, and the services performed by them, was contrary to public policy, that is, that they exerted any improper influence on the Legislature, but is grounded upon the sole idea that the commission of Birmingham had no legal authority to employ or pay them for such service.
It is well settled by the decisions of this court that municipal corporations can exercise those powers only which are granted in express words or fairly implied to those expressly granted and those…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State ex rel. Port of Seattle v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- Davis v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Henderson v. City of CovingtonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1878
- Richardson v. Scott's Bluff CountyNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Buchanan v. FarmerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Harper v. City of Wichita FallsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
- Hendrix, Mohr & Yardley, Inc. v. City of DaphneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1978
- City of Birmingham v. Hood-Mcpherson Realty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- City of Birmingham v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
- Cody Realty & Mortgage Co. v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.