Bell v. Otts

• Citation: 13 So. 43,101 Ala. 186
• Parties: BELL ET AL. v. OTTS.
• Decision Date: 02 May 1893
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

13 So. 43

101 Ala. 186

BELL ET AL. v. OTTS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 2, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; James B. Head, Judge.

Ejectment by Mary M. Otts against Martha Bell and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Dismissed.

The judgment from which the present appeal is prosecuted is in the following language: "This day came the parties by their attorneys, and the demurrers to pleas were sustained by the court, the material facts therein averred being provable under the general issue; and, issue being joined, thereupon came a jury of twelve good and lawful men, to wit, R. W. Beck and eleven others, who, being duly sworn and impaneled according to law, on their oaths say: 'We, the jury, find for the plaintiff for the land sued for, viz. S. 1/2 of S.E 1/4 of Sec. 6, T. 18 S., R. 2 W., in Jefferson Co., and twenty-five dollars damages for detention as against defendant Martha Bell,' and judgment is rendered against defendants Samuel Mace and Henry Edwards for the land sued for, together with all the costs in this behalf expended, for which execution may issue."

S. J Darby and B. K. Collier, for appellants.

Alex. T. London, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

The verdict in this case was: "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff for the land sued for, [describing it,] and twenty-five dollars damages for detention as against defendant Martha Bell." On this verdict a judgment ought to have been entered against all the defendants for the land sued for,-for $25 against Martha Bell, as damages for detention, and against all of them for the costs. Code §§2709, 2710; Bishop v. Lalouette, 67 Ala. 197. Immediately following this verdict, with a comma between appears what purports to be a judgment in the cause, based on the verdict, namely: "And judgment is rendered against defendants Samuel Mace and Henry Edwards for the land sued for, together with all the costs in this behalf expended, for which execution may issue." A judgment should be complete and certain in itself, and must appear to be the act-the adjudication-of the court, and not a memorandum or certified result. Speed v. Cocke, 57 Ala. 209. Among various definitions of a "judgment" in the books not differing in legal effect from each other, we have the one,-that it is "the final consideration and determination of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the matters submitted to it." 1 Freem. Judgm. § 2; Whitwell v. Emory, ...