1 Ala. 212 (Ala. 1840), Layman v. Hendrix

Citation1 Ala. 212
Opinion JudgeGOLDTHWAITE, J.
Party NameLAYMAN, et als v. HENDRIX.
AttorneyWILLIAM B. MARTIN, for the plaintiffs in error. CHILTON, contra.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Page 212

1 Ala. 212 (Ala. 1840)

LAYMAN, et als

v.

HENDRIX.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January Term, 1840

Writ of error to the Circuit Court of Benton County.

ACTION of trespass vi et armis. Demurrer to the declaration. Demurrer overruled. Each defendant then severally pleaded not guilty. The pleadings need not be stated, as no opinion is given by the court, on the assignment of error respecting the demurrer. In the transcript of the case, and immediately preceding the judgment, the following entry appears:--"this cause came on to be tried, and the defendants' demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration being overruled, they pleaded as follows,--each defendant, for himself, pleads not guilty; upon the back of which pleas, is the verdict of the jury, in the words and figures following, viz:--we, the jury, find in behalf of the plaintiff, and fine Wesley Short $100, George Layman $300, Daniel Layman $300, Samuel Whip $300. John C. McGehee. foreman." The judgment entry is as follows:--"this day came the parties, by their attornies, and thereupon the defendants' counsel demurred to the plaintiff's declaration, and argument being thereupon had, and the matters of law arising on said demurrer, being fully understood by the court; it is, therefore, considered by the court, that the said demurrer be overruled; and the said defendants, by leave of the court, plead, each for himself, separately, the general issue of not guilty; and thereupn came a jury," etc. etc. "who, upon their oaths, do say, they find the defendants guilty of the trespass in the said plaintiff's declaration mentioned, and they find for the plaintiff, the sum of one thousand dollars damages, to be levied in manner following, to wit: three hundred dollars of said damages, to be levied of Samuel Whip; and three hundred dollars of said damages, to be levied of Daniel Layman; and three hundred dollars of said damages, to be levied of George Layman, and the remaining sum of one hundred dollars of the said damages, to be levied of Wesley Short." Then follows a joint judgment for one thousand dollars, against all the defendants, to be levied according to the finding of the jury.

The defendants assign for error--

1. The overruling of the demurrer.

2. The changing the verdict of the jury.

3. The judgment rendered by the court.

WILLIAM B. MARTIN, for the plaintiffs in error.

CHILTON, contra.

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

As the attention of the court has not been directed to the supposed defects of the declaration, we have not deemed it important to be examined.

1. 2. The error, which is supposed to arise out of the change made in the verdict, cannot be available to the plaintiffs in error, because, it is evident, that the first entry is the mere recital of the clerk, of the effect of certain papers filed in the cause. If we are right in this, we may remark, that it is not the duty of a clerk to make a record, but merely to certify the one which exists. The presumption is, that if the verdict recited, was returned, the jury afterwards corrected their finding, and returned that which is stated in the judgment entry. If, in point of fact,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • 514 So.2d 1249 (Ala. 1986), 84-1222, Black Belt Wood Co., Inc. v. Sessions
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 3, 1986
    ...fixing a lump sum regardless of the culpability of tort feasors. City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 196 Ala. 127, 72 So. 25; Layman v. Hendrix, 1 Ala. 212; City of Tuscaloosa v. Fair, 232 Ala. 129, 167 So. 276; 64 C.J. p. 1084; Bull v. Albright, 254 Ala. 29, 47 So.2d 266." (Emphasis 257 Al......
  • 909 So.2d 806 (Ala. 2005), 1031285, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 25, 2005
    ...Corp., 523 So.2d 1042, 1048 Page 824 (Houston, J., dissenting as to the apportionment of punitive damages and citing Layman v. Hendrix, 1 Ala. 212, 214 (1840), for the proposition that "the injured party may proceed against the trespassers jointly or severally"). Therefore, if two......
  • 93 So.2d 428 (Ala. 1957), 5 Div. 639, Battle v. Morris
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 10, 1957
    ...damages against joint tort-feasors may not be apportioned. Bell v. Riley Bus Lines, 257 Ala. 120, 57 So.2d 612; Layman v. Hendrix, 1 Ala. 212; Slade v. Street, 77 Ala. 576; 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 36, p. 88; 86 C.J.S., Torts, § 34, p. 949. But the question may be asked as to why the damages......
  • 167 So. 276 (Ala. 1936), 6 Div. 793, City of Tuscaloosa v. Fair
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 13, 1936
    ...separately apportioned among joint defendants in a tort action. City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 196 Ala. 127, 72 So. 25; Layman v. Hendrix, 1 Ala. 212; 64 Corpus Juris, Page 281 When the verdict of a jury is not in proper form, the court may, before they are discharged, give them proper inst......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • 514 So.2d 1249 (Ala. 1986), 84-1222, Black Belt Wood Co., Inc. v. Sessions
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 3, 1986
    ...fixing a lump sum regardless of the culpability of tort feasors. City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 196 Ala. 127, 72 So. 25; Layman v. Hendrix, 1 Ala. 212; City of Tuscaloosa v. Fair, 232 Ala. 129, 167 So. 276; 64 C.J. p. 1084; Bull v. Albright, 254 Ala. 29, 47 So.2d 266." (Emphasis 257 Al......
  • 909 So.2d 806 (Ala. 2005), 1031285, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 25, 2005
    ...Corp., 523 So.2d 1042, 1048 Page 824 (Houston, J., dissenting as to the apportionment of punitive damages and citing Layman v. Hendrix, 1 Ala. 212, 214 (1840), for the proposition that "the injured party may proceed against the trespassers jointly or severally"). Therefore, if two......
  • 93 So.2d 428 (Ala. 1957), 5 Div. 639, Battle v. Morris
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 10, 1957
    ...damages against joint tort-feasors may not be apportioned. Bell v. Riley Bus Lines, 257 Ala. 120, 57 So.2d 612; Layman v. Hendrix, 1 Ala. 212; Slade v. Street, 77 Ala. 576; 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 36, p. 88; 86 C.J.S., Torts, § 34, p. 949. But the question may be asked as to why the damages......
  • 167 So. 276 (Ala. 1936), 6 Div. 793, City of Tuscaloosa v. Fair
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 13, 1936
    ...separately apportioned among joint defendants in a tort action. City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 196 Ala. 127, 72 So. 25; Layman v. Hendrix, 1 Ala. 212; 64 Corpus Juris, Page 281 When the verdict of a jury is not in proper form, the court may, before they are discharged, give them proper inst......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT