Carlisle v. Killebrew

• Decision Date: 08 November 1890
• Citation: 8 So. 355,91 Ala. 351
• Parties: CARLISLE v. KILLEBREW.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

8 So. 355

91 Ala. 351

CARLISLE v. KILLEBREW.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 8, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Dale county; H. D. CLAYTON, Special Judge.

At the July term, 1887, of the Dale circuit court, the appellee Killebrew, recovered a judgment against the appellant Carlisle, in an action of ejectment. This judgment was in the following language, omitting the formal part, in the beginning and ending of said judgment: "Came a jury of good and lawful men, to-wit, J. J. Rice, foreman, and eleven others, who, being duly sworn, *** say they find for the plaintiff the land sued for, and assess the damages for the detention at $75. It is further considered and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff do have and recover of the defendant the following described lands, to-wit, a fraction No. 12, a part of S.E. 1/4 and N.E. 1/4 of section 16, T. 4 R. 24, containing 34 75-100 acres of land, lying and being situated in Dale county, also for which let writ of possession issue," etc. The proceeding from which this appeal is taken is a motion made by the defendant in said ejectment suit to set aside the judgment obtained therein by plaintiff, on the ground that said judgment was void for uncertainty. In support of his motion, the movant introduced in evidence several patents issued by the governor of this state in 1848, in which lands contained in the sixteenth section involved in this controversy were conveyed, and without any reference to the subdivision fraction No. 12, as contained in the complaint in the original ejectment suit and in the judgment obtained in said suit. In rebuttal, the respondent to the motion here involved introduced another patent issued by the governor at the same date, in which the subdivision fraction No. 12 was recognized, and the land was so described in the conveyance by the patent. Upon the submission of the motion for decision, the special judge overruled the motion, and upheld the judgment, to which ruling the movant excepted, and now assigns the same as error on this appeal.

H. L. Martin, for appellant.

H. H. Blackman, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

A court is without power to alter, vary, or annul final judgments after the close of the term at which they have been rendered unless it be for the correction of clerical errors or omissions. When a court, however, has rendered a judgment void on its face, either from a want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the parties, such judgment may be vacated at any subsequent term. Buchanan v. Thomason, 70 Ala. 402; Baker v. Barclift, 76 Ala. 417; Cox v. Jones, 40 Ala. 297. Every judgment of a court of justice must be perfect in itself, or capable of being made perfect by reference to the pleadings, or to the papers on file in the cause, or to other pertinent entries on the docket. Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 342. In the case in 69 Ala. supra, the verdict was, "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff for the land running to the Ferguson & Allen line," and the judgment followed the verdict. The verdict was special, evidently for a part of the land sued for, and there was nothing in the pleadings or papers on file or entries to define where the Ferguson & Allen line was; and the judgment was held void for uncertainty. Jinkins v. Noel, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 74. In the case under consideration, the judgment of the court follows the pleadings, and the lands described in the judgment accord exactly with those in the declaration. In ejectment a general verdict is sufficient. Chapman v. Holding, 60 Ala. 522. A verdict for the land in the declaration described has been held to be sufficiently specific, although the declaration does not precisely ascertain the quantity or boundaries. Tyler, Ej. p. 581. If the verdict is for a less number of acres than mentioned in the declaration, it is necessary to describe either lands to be recovered...