franchise privilege in Alabama

1997In Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1994), this Court held that a contract between Walker County and Browning-Ferris Industries of Alabama, Inc. (“BFI”) violated the Competitive Bid Law. 3 In that contract, Walker' County and the Walker County Solid Waste Disposal Authority agreed with BFI for BFI to build a landfill in the county and for the County to assist BFI in its efforts to obtain approvals and permits.

1954Obviously, it is by reason of the fact that in the Spector case the tax was imposed on the privilege of engaging in interstate com merce, whereas in the Gas Company case the tax was imposed as a recompense for the protection of the property of the Company in that state, the former illegal; the latter valid, the former objectionable to the commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution; the latter not objectionable.” We find no merit in appellant’s insistence that this case is not governed by the Spector case because in the Spector case the tax was placed “unequivocally upon the corporation’s franch

1954Obviously, it is by reason of the fact that in the Spector case the tax was imposed on the privilege of engaging in interstate com merce, whereas in the Gas Company case the tax was imposed as a recompense for the protection of the property of the Company in that state, the former illegal; the latter valid, the former objectionable to the commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution; the latter not objectionable.” We find no merit in appellant’s insistence that this case is not governed by the Spector case because in the Spector case the tax was placed “unequivocally upon the corporation’s franch

1912Concluding an elaborate note in review of the authorities on the general question here involved, the editor of. the Lawyer’s Reports Annotated says: “The conclusion from all the authorities seems to be clear to the effect that a franchise or privilege to use streets for any of various quasi public purposes above considered will constitute an irrevocable contract, unless there is in some form a clear reservation of the right to cancel or re voke.” — Clarksburg Electric Light Co. v. Clarksburg, 47 W.

1912Va. 739 , 35 S. E. 994 , 50 L.

1908Its purpose, as manifestly indicated by the averments of the complaint which remained after the demurrer was sustained to it, and after amendment, was to question the defendants’ right to exercise the franchise or privilege of a corporation under the name of the Beulah Baptist Church, and not to inquire by what right they exercise the prerogatives of the office of trustees of said corporation. — Subdivision 3, § 3420, Code 1896; State v. Webb, 97 Ala. 111 , 12 South. 377 , 38 Am.

1846In the case cited, it was added, “ The single act of levying the tax in the first instance, is the cause of an action at law; but that affords a remedy only for the single act, and is not equal to the remedy in Chancery, which prevents its repetition, and protects the privilege.” So it has been held that a court of equity, pursuing the analogy of the law, that a party may maintain a private action for special damage, even in case of a public nuisance, will now take jurisdiction of a public nuisance, at the instance of a private person, where he is in imminent danger of suffering a special inju