Casey v. Cooledge
Decision Date | 14 June 1937 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 72 |
Citation | 234 Ala. 499,175 So. 557 |
Parties | CASEY v. COOLEDGE et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1937
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.F. Thompson, Judge.
Action by Clyde Casey against A.H. Cooledge and H.M. Mauck individually and doing business as the Southern Finance Company, wherein the plaintiff obtained a judgment and filed a motion to revive the judgment. From a judgment denying his motion, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Amzi G Barber and Hugh Barber, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Ernest Matthews, of Birmingham, for appellees.
The suit sought to revive a judgment at law.
The parties waived a trial by jury and the trial was had on plea of the general issue and special pleas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Demurrers to the pleas were overruled on the hearing of the cause and the motion to revive the case was denied, to which action of the court, the "movant accepts."
Presupposing that a plaintiff in judgment has taken no action that would defeat his right or preclude his effort to revive a judgment rendered at his insistance, a scire facias to revive can be maintained in his name or by his personal representative, or his trustee in bankruptcy. Section 7870, Code; Quill v Carolina Portland Cement Co., 220 Ala. 134, 124 So. 305, 307.
The general authorities are to the effect that the plaintiff, though becoming a bankrupt subsequent to the rendition of the judgment, after failure to act as to such property by the bankrupt court or by its trustee (Crawford v. Horton et al. [ Ala.Sup.] 175 So. 310; De Moville v. Merchants & Farmers Bank of Greene County, 233 Ala. 204, 170 So. 756), such bankrupt has the right or title that authorized the plaintiff in judgment (bankrupt) to proceed to revive and collect such judgment. Such are the general authorities.
5 Cyc. 343-346; Black on Bankruptcy, § 322, pp. 719, 720, 721, and that of the Supreme Court of the United States, Hampton v. Rouse, 22 Wall. 263, 275, 22 L.Ed. 755; Conner v. Long, 104 U.S. 228, 26 L.Ed. 723; Johnson v. Collier, 222 U.S. 538, 32 S.Ct. 104, 56 L.Ed. 306; Sparkawk v. Yerkes, 142 U.S. 1, 12 S.Ct. 104, 35 L.Ed. 915; Dushane v. Beall, 161 U.S. 513, 16 S.Ct. 637, 40 L.Ed. 791. Such are the holdings by this court. Watson v. Motley, 201 Ala. 25, 75 So. 147; Coffman v. Folds, 216 Ala. 133, 112 So. 911; Kibbe v. Scholes et al., 219 Ala. 571, 123 So. 61; Eggleston v. Barnett et al., 220 Ala. 394, 125 So. 637; Harper v. Dothan Nat. Bank, 223 Ala. 26, 28, 134 So. 623; Bankers' Mortg. Bond Co. v. Rosenthal, 226 Ala. 135, 139, 145 So. 456; De Moville v. Merchants & Farmers Bank of Greene County, 233 Ala. 204, 170 So. 756; Crawford v. Horton et al. (Ala.Sup) 175 So. 310; Jackson v. Hales, 23 Ala.App. 458, 126 So. 889.
The rule of a phase of this case is stated by Mr. Justice Lamar (in a case coming from this jurisdiction) as follows:
There was no error in overruling objection to questions to movant, "You did not list this judgment as one of your assets in the bankrupt court?" and "No receiver or trustee was appointed in the matter was there?" The questions were material and tended to indicate the condition of the bankrupt estate and the relation of the bankrupt thereto. De Moville v. Merchants & Farmers Bank of Greene County, 233 Ala. 204, 170 So. 756; Crawford v. Horton, et al. (Ala.Sup.) 175 So. 310.
The assignments of error based on such adverse ruling in the introduction of this evidence are not sufficiently insisted upon. Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, 196 Ala. 599, 72 So. 158.
The appellant thus narrows the issue to the "sole substantial question *** whether or not Clyde Casey *** had at the time he filed his petition or motion to revive this judgment, such property in or title to the judgment as would authorize him to prosecute the scire facias to revive."
The several pleas, 1 to 5, inclusive, deny the right to revive because of the failure of the bankrupt to declare as an asset and that the withholding from the schedules returned to the bankrupt court this substantial judgment in question as an asset of his estate was fraudulent.
In Coffman v. Folds, 216 Ala. 133, 112 So. 911, the subject-matter was property exempt to the bankrupt; as well as in Roy v. Abraham, 209 Ala. 691, 96 So. 883, and Kibbe v. Scholes et al., 219 Ala. 571, 123 So. 61.
In Watson v. Motley, 201 Ala. 25, 75 So. 147, the following observation is contained:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Antwerp v. Van Antwerp
...bankruptcy with the approval of the bankrupt court upon certain conditions. Crawford v. Horton, 234 Ala. 439, 175 So. 310; Casey v. Cooledge, 234 Ala. 499, 175 So. 557; Wofford Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Adams, 222 Ala. 527, So. 254; 8 Corpus Juris Secundum, Bankruptcy, § 489, p. 1362. The trus......
-
In re Peterson
...apparel for himself or herself and family ..." Exemption statutes should be liberally construed in favor of debtor. Casey v. Cooledge, 234 Ala. 499, 175 So. 557 (1937). However, they should also be construed in light of the purpose for which they were created. See In re Hendrick, 45 B.R. 96......
- American Life Ins. Co. v. Williams
-
Bonds v. Bonds, 7 Div. 451
...... judgment and the decree of cancellation is supported by the. presumption that obtains. Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So. 171; Casey v. Cooledge and Macuk. (Ala.Sup.) 175 So. 557; Andrews v. Grey, 199. Ala. 152, 74 So. 62; Howell v. City of Dothan. (Ala.Sup.) 174 So. 624; Wood ......