Ex parte Johnson, 8 Div. 24.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 24. |
| Parties | EX PARTE JOHNSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Original petition of Annie Fay Johnson for mandamus to W. H. Quillin, as Judge of the Law and Equity Court, Franklin County, to compel respondent judge to set aside his order vacating divorce decree granted petitioner.
Writ denied, and petition dismissed.
J. Arnold Teks, of Russellville, for petitioner.
W. H. Quillin, of Russellville, pro se.
The Law and Equity Court of Franklin County, created by local act No. 404, approved September 28, 1923, has concurrent equity jurisdiction with the circuit courts of the state. Loc.Acts 1923, p. 272.
The jurisdiction to grant divorces is purely statutory and courts upon which jurisdiction is conferred, in Alabama, are quoad hoc courts of statutory and limited jurisdiction. Martin v. Martin et al., 173 Ala. 106, 55 So. 632; Tillery v. Tillery, 217 Ala. 142, 115 So. 27.
The circuit court, as a court of equity, is always open for the transaction of business, and under the provisions of §§ 6636, 6667 and 6670, figuratively speaking, the final judgments and decrees of the court remain in the breast of the court and subject to its plenary power for thirty days from the date they are rendered. Ex parte Howard, Howard v. Ridgeway et al., 225 Ala. 106, 142 So. 403.
This rule is by the act of its creation applied to the Law and Equity Court of Franklin County, §§ 10 and 15, Local Acts 1923, pp. 274, 275.
The order vacating the final decree was well within thirty days from its rendition and the court had the power ex mero motu to set aside and vacate the decree and restore the cause to the trial docket.
The writ of mandamus is therefore denied, and the petition dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maya Corporation v. Smith
...196 So. 125 239 Ala. 470 MAYA CORPORATION ET AL. v. SMITH ET AL. 8 Div. 6.Supreme Court of AlabamaMay 9, 1940 ... Appeal ... from ... to the cross bill of Maya Corporation, are reported as Ex ... parte Cullinan, 224 Ala. 263, 139 So. 255, 81 A.L.R. 160, and ... Smith v. Maya ... 128] Williams v. Wicker, 235 Ala. 348, 179 So. 250; Ex ... parte Johnson, 238 Ala. 584, 192 So. 508; Alabama ... By-Products Corp. v. Rutherford, ... ...
-
Brand v. State
...this regard, it is apparent that the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case is in conflict with the decision of this court in Ex parte Johnson, supra. That recognized and sustained the rule that decrees of the courts of this state may be set aside by the judge granting such decrees w......
-
Schaeffer v. Walker
...acted upon its own motion under its inherent power to vacate the decree in accord with the public policy of the state. Ex parte Johnson, 238 Ala. 584, 192 So. 508. trial court saw and heard the witnesses on the trial and, within the time prescribed by statute, granted a new trial. We will n......
-
West v. West
...right to amend the decree of February 23, 1968, within thirty days thereafter is well established by our decisions. See Ex parte Johnson, 238 Ala. 584, 192 So. 508; Grigsby v. Liles, 274 Ala. 67, 147 So.2d 846; Schaeffer v. Walker, 241 Ala. 530, 3 So.2d 405, and cases For aught appearing, c......