Brown v. McKnight
| Decision Date | 30 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 972 |
| Citation | 216 Ala. 660,114 So. 40 |
| Parties | BROWN v. McKNIGHT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Action by J.G. Brown against James McKnight. From a judgment or order passing the case and taxing plaintiff with costs plaintiff appeals and petitions for mandamus. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Appeal dismissed; writ of mandamus awarded.
Pinkney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellant.
McEniry & McEniry, of Bessemer, for appellee.
Appellant sued appellee on a note. The trial court had established a rule as to pleading in short by consent, with which plaintiff had not complied, and in the enforcement of this rule the court continued the case and taxed plaintiff with all the costs that had accrued to that date. Plaintiff reserved exception, and appeals, assigning this action as error. It is too clear for discussion that the order made was not a final judgment as would support an appeal, and there is no statutory authority for an appeal from such an order. The appeal must be dismissed. Wise v. Spears, 200 Ala 695, 76 So. 869.
The question presented is reviewable by petition for mandamus and anticipating such a holding appellant embraces such petition in this transcript. The entire matter is therefore before us in record form, duly certified, and the action of the court is to be reviewed upon this petition.
Plaintiff sued as transferee of a note, and, upon the case being ready for trial and the jury selected, counsel for defendant stated: "We plead in short by consent." Plaintiff objected to such pleading, insisting that he could not afford in this case to have informal pleading. He had not given defendant or his counsel notice two days previous that objection would be interposed to such general pleading as required by a rule established by the judge of the court in March, 1924, which rule appears in the report of the case. Plaintiff insisted the rule was unreasonable and contrary to statutory proceedings, and should not be enforced against him. The court invoked the rule against plaintiff, and continued the case, taxing him with the cost. Exception was duly reserved. We are cited to no express statutory authority for such character of rule. It appears it was not entered pursuant to section 6689, Code of 1923, and section 6664 of the Code of 1923, noted by counsel for appellee, appears to be confined to equity proceedings. The circuit court had however, inherent power to make reasonable rules for the conduct of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan County Commission v. Powell
...power, irrespective of statute, to make rules for regulation and transaction of business; may punish for contempt); Brown v. McKnight, 216 Ala. 660, 114 So. 40 (1927) (inherent power to make reasonable rules for conduct of business); Ex parte Wetzel, 243 Ala. 130, 8 So.2d 824 (1942) (inhere......
-
Rogers v. State
...State that the circuit court has inherent powers to make reasonable rules for the conduct of the business of the court. Brown v. McKnight, 216 Ala. 660, 114 So. 40. In Porter v. State, 27 Ala.App. 441, 174 So. 313, this court noted that an act of the legislature superceded any local rule of......
-
Ex parte Huguley Water System
...this state that a circuit court has inherent powers to make reasonable rules for the conduct of the business of the court. Brown v. McKnight, 216 Ala. 660, 114 So. 40. We are citing these decisions and emphasizing this principle of law because by analogy we think it is enlightening on the i......
-
Arlington Props., Inc. v. Brown (Ex parte Arlington Props., Inc.)
...rules extends only to prescribing rules of practice and procedure “for the conduct of the business of the court,” Brown v. McKnight, 216 Ala. 660, 661, 114 So. 40, 41 (1927), excluding any notion that the court can promulgate a rule that affects the jurisdiction of a court. Pursuant to §§ 6......