C.H. Austin & Sons v. Hunter
| Decision Date | 20 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 812 |
| Citation | 69 So. 113,193 Ala. 163 |
| Parties | C.H. AUSTIN & SONS et al. v. HUNTER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Action by Connie Hunter against C.H. Austin & Sons and others. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and defendants bring certiorari. Writ granted, judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Troup & Nix, of New Decatur, for appellants.
Wert & Lynne, of Decatur, for appellee.
This cause comes to us by certiorari from the Court of Appeals. When first considered by that court the case was reversed and remanded; but on application for a rehearing the judgment of reversal was set aside, and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.
The record informs us that the appellee, Connie Hunter, brought suit against the appellants, C.H. Austin & Sons, and the sureties on the garnishment bond which they had executed to procure the issuance of a writ of garnishment in aid of a previous suit, pending in a justice court, which C.H. Austin & Sons had brought on account against appellee. It appears further that Hunter was duly served with summons in the justice court suit, and that the suit there proceeded regularly to judgment in favor of C.H. Austin & Sons and against the said Hunter--all of which occurred before the present suit was instituted on the garnishment bond.
The breach of the bond alleged in this action is (in one count) that the garnishment was wrongful, and (in the other) that it was wrongful and malicious, in that Hunter did not owe the debt on which the garnishment was founded. When the cause was first considered by the Court of Appeals it was reversed and remanded, for the reason that the question of whether or not Hunter owed the debt was determined against him by the introduction in evidence of the former judgment in the justice court case in aid of which the garnishment issued.
The justice court in which the judgment was rendered had jurisdiction both of the person and of the subject-matter, and the judgment so rendered was conclusive of indebtedness. Being thus adjudicated, it could not be impeached by the parties or privies in a collateral action between the same parties in a suit on the garnishment bond. Logan, Adm'r, v. C.I. & C. Co., 139 Ala. 548, 36 So. 729; Peet & Co. v. Hatcher, 112 Ala. 514, 21 So. 711, 57 Am.St.Rep. 45.
The plea of the defendant as disclosed by the record was the general issue, "with leave to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Standard Ins. Co.
... ... if specially pleaded. Austin & Sons v. Hunter, 193 ... Ala. 163, 69 So. 113; Garnett v. Parry Mfg ... ...
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Sinquefield, 4 Div. 838
... ... v. Standard Insurance Co., 198 Ala ... 522, 73 So. 897; Austin & Sons v. Hunter, 193 Ala ... 163, 69 So. 113; Garnett v. Parry Mfg ... ...
-
Security Finance Co. v. Kelly's Tire Shop
... ... 201; Allen v ... Standard Ins. Co., 198 Ala. 522, 73 So. 897; Austin ... v. Hunter, 193 Ala. 163, 69 So. 113; Converse Bridge ... Co. v ... ...
-
Burrow v. Leigeber
...Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549, 126 So. 869; Allen v. Standard Ins. Co., 198 Ala. 522, 73 So. 897; Austin & Sons v. Hunter, 193 Ala. 163, 69 So. 113; Garnett v. Parry Mfg. Co., 185 Ala. 326, 64 So. Appellant vigorously argues that to deny him the benefit of this principl......