# Alabama College v. Harman

> Supreme Court of Alabama · June 14, 1937 · 234 Ala. 446

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3235554

## Case

- **Full name:** Alabama College v. Harman.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** June 14, 1937
- **Citations:** 234 Ala. 446; 175 So. 394; 1937 Ala. LEXIS 401
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Knight
- **Judges:** Knight, Anderson, Thomas, Brown, JJ-
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3235554

## Opinion text

On Rehearing
KNIGHT, Justice.
On application for rehearing our attention has been called for the first time to an act of the Legislature of Alabama, approved September 13, 1935, Gen.Acts 1935, p. 1064, entitled:
“An Act
“To provide authority for the State Board of Education and/or the trustees of all State Institutions, where education is a part of the program of the Institution, to borrow money from Federal Agencies for the erection of buildings, beautification of grounds, and the erection and maintenance of swimming pools at the several State Institutions; to authorize the issuance of bonds, warrants or other evidences of debt for the repayment of the amount borrowed with interest at a rate not to exceed four per cent semi-annually, and to pledge therefor the fees from students to be levied by the Institution for
*451
which the money is borrowed, and any other moneys not appropriated by the State to said Institution; to make such bonds, warrants or other evidences of debt not an obligation of the State and not payable out of any moneys provided by the State.”
All that need be said is that the bill, as filed in this case, clearly does not seek a declaratory judgment or decree as to the right of the complainant to borrow money from the federal government, or from any federal agency, as provided' in said act. On the contrary, it seeks a declaratory judgment as to whether it had power generally to borrow the money and pledge the properties of said institution for its payment.
As to all other questions argued by appellant, in his brief filed on rehearing, we find nothing to convince us that we were in error in the opinion heretofore rendered. It will stand, and the application for rehearing will be overruled.
Application overruled.
ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ-, concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3235554. Public record. Not legal advice.