Doty v. Pope
| Decision Date | 30 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 90. |
| Citation | 213 Ala. 4,101 So. 883 |
| Parties | DOTY v. POPE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; T. L. Sowell, Judge.
Action on common counts by John Pope against J. D. Doty. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 450, Acts 1911. Affirmed.
Pennington & Pou, of Jasper, for appellant.
E. B. & K. V. Fite, of Hamilton, for appellee.
The caption of the minutes of the court rendering the judgment sought to be reviewed shows that the court was held on the second Monday in August, 1922, "which was the time fixed by proper order of the judges of the Fourteenth judicial circuit of Alabama, in accordance with the terms of the act approved September 22, 1915 (General Acts 1915, p 707)," etc. The local law (antedating the act, supra) governing the terms of court in Marion county fixed the regular terms at times other than the second Monday in August.
The act provides:
"That the causes on the dockets for trial shall be called peremptorily at the times fixed by law and at such other times as may be fixed by order of circuit judge."
Terms of the circuit court run from the first Monday in January to the last Saturday in June, inclusive, and from the first Monday after July 4th to the last Saturday before Christmas inclusive. Of that every one must take notice. That part of the act quoted above relates, not to terms of court, but to the peremptory call of causes for trial of which litigants should have notice in some way.
The statute laws of the subject is incomplete. Section 6669 of the Code of 1923 requires the order designating the times for the holding of sessions for the trial of nonjury civil cases to be entered on the minutes of the court. Such an entry should be made upon the minutes of the court whenever a special session for the trial of any cause or causes is ordered, and, in view of the provisions relating to the drawing of juries, section 8616 et seq., it would seem to be necessary that such order should be made at least 20 days before the court enters upon the peremptory call of causes for trial. However, we must not be understood as holding that the jurisdiction of the court depends on such order being entered upon the minutes, for the court is in session, as above noted, practically for the entire year. In this connection, also, we note that where an adjourned or special session for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oden v. King
... ... separately and severally (Thompson v. Brown, 200 ... Ala. 382, 76 So. 298; Bank of New Brockton v ... Dunnavant, 204 Ala. 636, 87 So. 105; Doty v ... Pope, 213 Ala. 4, 101 So. 883) ... The ... trial court was in error in sustaining demurrer to the bill ... as amended. There is ... ...
-
Thomasson v. Benson Hardware Co., 4 Div. 579.
...to be dictum in that case, because the court had held that the existence of a proper order should be presumed. But in the case of Doty v. Pope, supra, a nonjury civil governed by a statute similar in this respect, appellant undertook to show that there was no such order as required by such ......
-
Stuckey v. Murphy
...waived this irregularity by appealing from the decree. The statement found in the last paragraph of the opinion in the case of Doty v. Pope, supra, which we italicize below, relied on to sustain this contention; this we now quote: "But nothing of this can avail appellant, whose argument is ......
-
West v. State ex rel. Matthews
... ... ten days' notice or consent of the parties. Hudson v ... Hudson, 204 Ala. 75, 85 So. 282; Doty v. Pope, ... 213 Ala. 4, 101 So. 883; Pope v. Allinder, 219 Ala ... 439, 122 So. 419. In respect to this contention there is ... nothing in the ... ...