Mobile v. Orr, 181 Ala. 308, 61 So. 920, 45 L.R.A., N.S., 575; Sims v. Alabama Water Co., 205 Ala. 378, 87 So. 688. Ordinances which assume, directly or indirectly, to permit acts or occupations which the State prohibits, are uniformly declared to be null and void. Williamson v. Anniston, 215 Ala. 532, 112 So. 109; Ex parte Rowe, 4 Ala. App. 254, 59 So. 69; Jackson v. Sylacauga, 25 Ala. App. 244, 144 So. 125; Loiseau v. State, 114 Ala. 34, 22 So. 138, 62 Am.St.Rep. 84; Hewlett v. Camp, 115 Ala. 499, 22 So. 137; Almerigotti v. Jarvis, 95 Fla. 914, 117 So. 793; 43 C.J. 217. STAKELY, Justice.
"Where, in the course of litigation, a conflict arises between the ordinance of a city and the statute of the state, the latter prevails and the former must yield." Carlton v. Boudar, 118 Va. 521, 88 S.E. 174, 4 A. L. R. 1480; Hewlett v. Kamp, 115 Ala. 499, 22 So. 137; Jackson v. City of Sylacauga (Ala. App.) 144 So. 125; Grantham v. Chickasha, 156 Okla. 56, 9 P.2d 747; In re Lanksford, 72 Okla. 40, 178 P. 673. There is nothing contained in Ex parte Dickison, 138 Okla. 266, 280 P. 797, contrary to this view, for therein the parties agreed upon the unconstitutionality of the exemption statutes, and for the purpose only of that cause the statutes were treated as void ab initio.