Adams v. Bibby

• Decision Date: 17 June 1915
• Docket Number: 25
• Citation: 194 Ala. 652,69 So. 588
• Parties: ADAMS et al. v. BIBBY et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

69 So. 588

194 Ala. 652

ADAMS et al. v. BIBBY et al.

No. 25

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 17, 1915

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; H.A. Sharpe, Judge.

Action by William Bibby and others against John H. Adams and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 449, Acts 1911 Affirmed.

Anderson C.J., dissenting in part.

The action is stated on the common counts, and on breach of a contract, which is set out. The judgment, after setting out rulings on demurrers, concludes as follows:

It is ordered and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff have and recover of defendant $920, that being the amount of their debt and damage as ascertained and assessed by the court upon the proof produced upon the trial of this cause besides their costs in this cause expended, for which let execution issue.

The pleadings showed as plaintiffs William Bibby, Mary Bibby, and James Bibby, and as defendants John H. Adams, James Weisell Isaac F. Perkins, and Francis M. Fletcher; these parties, as parties of the first and second part, having signed the contract sued on. The other facts appear, except the basis of the second assignment of error, which is not deemed necessary to be here set out.

Forney Johnston, of Birmingham, for appellants.

Harsh, Beddow & Fitts and John Fulton, all of Birmingham, for appellees.

ANDERSON C.J.

It is no doubt the rule that it is essential to a valid judgment that it should designate the parties for and against whom it is given, yet when in the body of the judgment it is in favor of the plaintiff or plaintiffs and against the defendant or defendants in general terms, the parties in whose favor and against whom, respectively, it is rendered, are to be ascertained, not alone by looking to the memorandum at the head entry, but also to the pleadings and the process, with the return thereon, which indicate who are before the court as plaintiffs and defendants, and in what capacities, respectively, they are parties. Bolling v. Speller, 96 Ala. 270, 11 So. 300; Blackman v. Moore, 106 Ala. 458, 17 So. 629; Fletcher v. Riley, 169 Ala. 433, 53 So. 816. The caption of the complaint in the present case sets out the names of John H. Adams, James Weisell, Isaac F. Perkins, and Francis M. Fletcher, as "defendant." The body of the judgment entry is in favor of the "plaintiff" against the "defendant," while the caption to the judgment entry describes John H. Adams and James Weisell as defendants. If we are to be controlled by the body of the judgment entry alone, it is against a defendant in the singular; if we are to be controlled by the caption to the said judgment entry, then it is against Adams and Weisell only, and not the other two defendants. On the other hand, if we look to the pleading and process and the return thereon, in connection with the judgment entry, we are constrained to hold that the present judgment is against Adams alone. While all four of the appellants were set out in the caption of the complaint, the record discloses no summons or service against all or any of the parties, and the only pleas filed seem to be by John H. Adams only.

It is true that the body of the judgment says "plaintiff," and not "plaintiffs"; but the caption thereof sets out all three of the plaintiffs, and therefore conforms to the complaint, and the judgment must be...