Austin v. Clark, 4 Div. 381.
| Citation | 247 Ala. 560,25 So.2d 415 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1946 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 381. |
| Parties | AUSTIN v. CLARK. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Roy L. Smith and W. R. Belcher, both of Phenix City, for appellant.
J. W. Brassell and A. L. Patterson, both of Phenix City, for appellee.
W. L Austin instituted suit by summons and complaint in the Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama, against H. R Mathews, sheriff of Russell County, to recover the sum of $2,200 as for money had and received.
Under and by virtue of the provisions of section 1179, Title 7 Code of 1940, Mathews made affidavit that one W. H. Clark, not a party to the suit, without collusion with him, claimed the money in controversy, and deposited the money in court, and prayed an order that Clark be required, on notice, to come in and defend.
Clark appeared and interposed a claim to the money. In substance, he claimed that the money belonged to him; that Austin and one A. V. Dunn came to his place of business in Russell County, Alabama, and 'robbed him of said sum of money'; that said sum of money was taken from W. L. Austin by officers of the law and held by them as evidence in a pending criminal charge against W. L. Austin and A. V. Dunn, wherein Austin and Dunn were charged with robbery, and that later said money was turned over to H. R. Mathews.
Austin interposed demurrers to the claim of Clark, which were overruled. Austin then filed a plea of the general issue and a special plea numbered 2. In substance plea 2 alleged that Austin has theretofore been tried by a jury in Russell County, Alabama, on the charge of robbery, mentioned in Clark's claim, and by the jury acquitted, and that by reason thereof he should have judgment awarding the money in controversy to him.
Plea 2 was not tested by demurrer, but instead issue was joined thereon. The cause was tried by a jury. Plea 2 was clearly sustained by the testimony. In fact no evidence to support a contrary inference was offered. The trial court, upon written request therefor, gave the general charge for claimant Clark. The jury returned a verdict for Clark, and judgment was rendered thereon. Austin's motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court, and he appealed.
Austin's special plea 2 is but an attempt to set up, as an answer to Clark's claim, the fact of his acquittal on a trial for the criminal charge of robbing Clark of the money involved in this suit. The fact of acquittal of the criminal charge was not material in this cause, and the plea was insufficient. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Gunn, 224 Ala. 444, 140 So. 410. But, as stated above, Clark joined issue on plea 2 without testing same by demurrer.
It has been often stated in the opinions of this Court that parties may frame their own issues, and thereby immaterial matters made material for that trial. Fraternal Aid Union v. Monfee, 230 Ala. 202, 160 So. 529. And if the cause is tried upon an insufficient or immaterial plea, without objection being first taken by demurrer, the judgment of the court must be pronounced in accordance with the result of the issues. The trial court cannot instruct the jury to find against the evidence supporting such a plea. Watson v. Brazeal, 7 Ala. 451; Masterson v. Gibson, 56 Ala. 56; Mudge v. Treat, 57 Ala. 1; Glass v. Meyer, Son & Co., 124 Ala. 332, 26 So. 890; Clinton Mining Co. v. Bradford, 192 Ala. 576, 69 So. 4; Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Denson, 208 Ala. 337, 94 So. 311; Pridgen v. Shadgett, 244 Ala. 167, 169, 12 So.2d 395.
The trial court was in error in giving at claimant Clark's request the general charge.
The cause is reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
All the Justices concur.
The appellant as plaintiff brought a common law action of assumpsit against H. R. Mathews, Jr., for money had and received, to recover the sum of $2,200 alleged to be loot gained in the accomplishment of robbery, the money being recovered from a cache in the edge of the woods, where it was hidden by plaintiff, the alleged robber. Mathews on being served made an affidavit in compliance with Section 1179, Title 7, Code 1940, that Clark who was not a party to the suit, without collusion with him, claimed the money in controversy and deposited the money in court, praying an order that Clark be required on notice to come in and defend. The notice was issued and Clark in response thereto appeared and filed what is termed in the record 'an answer' partaking of the nature of a complaint, claiming the money. Thereupon ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Blankenship
...Ins. Co. v. Clark, 258 Ala. 141, 61 So.2d 19, 32 (1952); Balls v. Crump, 256 Ala. 512, 56 So.2d 108, 110 (1952); Austin v. Clark, 247 Ala. 560, 25 So.2d 415, 416 (1946); Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy, 231 Ala. 680, 166 So. 604, 608 (1936); Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Gun......
-
Pick-Bay Co. v. Younkin
...that parties may frame their own issues, and thereby make immaterial matter material for that particular trial, citing Austin v. Clark, 247 Ala. 560, 25 So.2d 415 (1946). In Austin v. Clark, supra, this Court made that statement, but pointed out that the plea there involved was clearly supp......
-
Westbrook v. Gibbs
...in this state that parties may frame their own issues and thereby immaterial matters may be made material for that trial. Austin v. Clark, 247 Ala. 560, 25 So.2d 415; Riddle v. Dorough, 279 Ala. 527, 187 So.2d At the conclusion of the plaintiff's testimony, defendant Gibbs rested; he reques......
-
Riddle v. Dorough
...being first taken by demurrer, the judgment of the court must be pronounced in accordance with the result of the issues. Austin v. Clark,247 Ala. 560, 25 So.2d 415. In the present case not only was no demurrer filed to the plea of contributory negligence, but no objections were interposed e......