Elyton Land Co. v. Morgan
| Citation | 88 Ala. 434,7 So. 249 |
| Parties | ELYTON LAND CO. v. MORGAN ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1890 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from city court of Birmingham; H. A. SHARPE, Judge.
Action by W. J. Morgan & Co. against the Elyton Land Company. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs, and defendant appealed.
Lane & White, for appellant.
Weatherly & Putnam, for appellees.
There is no merit in the present appeal. The objection sought to be raised by demurrer cannot be presented in that way. Demurrer raises the question of the sufficiency of the complaint, and the present complaint is sufficient. If the affidavit to the account was insufficient, that could be raised when it was offered in evidence. Code 1886, § 2773. The defect, if any, went to the evidence, not to the pleadings. The demurrer was frivolous. But if the demurrer had been well taken, it could not avail the appellants. It was not enough that a sufficient issue was formed. Counsel should have been present to invoke the action of the court, and to represent his client. A demurrer found in the file, and neither called to the attention of the court, nor ruled on, must be regarded as abandoned; and parties permitting their suits to be tried in their absence, and without counsel, cannot complain if they are treated as in default. Lehman v. Hudmon, 85 Ala. 135, 4 South. Rep. 741.
The objection that the judgment was by default instead of nil dicit relates to a mere matter of form, and is without merit. Glass Co. v. Paulk, 83 Ala. 404, 3 South. Rep. 800; McLaren v. Anderson, 81 Ala. 106.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skelton v. Weaver
...has been overruled on the proposition quoted above. Bryant v. Simpson, 3 Stew. 339; McCollom v. Hogan, 1 Ala. 515; Elyton Land Co. v. Morgan, 88 Ala. 434, 7 So. 249; Schwarz v. Oppenheimer, 90 Ala. 462, 8 So. 36; Hart v. Sharpton, 124 Ala. 638, 27 So. 450; Alabama National Bank v. Hunt, 125......
-
Memphis & C.R. Co. v. Martin
...112 Ala. 247, 20 So. 583; McDonald v. Railway Co., 123 Ala. 227, 26 So. 165; Cartlidge v. Sloan, 124 Ala. 596, 26 So. 918; Land Co. v. Morgan, 88 Ala. 434, 7 So. 249; Mortgage Co. v. Inzer, 98 Ala. 608, 13 So. 507; Hereford v. Combs (Ala.) 28 So. 582. It follows that, on the record before u......
-
Lamont v. Marbury Lumber Co.
...119 Ala. 34, 24 So. 727; Hereford v. Combs, 126 Ala. 369, 28 So. 582; Ala. Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 125 Ala. 512, 28 So. 488; Elyton L. Co. v. Morgan, 88 Ala. 434, 7 So. 249. Gunter, of Montgomery, for appellant. Rushton, Williams & Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellee. McCLELLAN, J. This is the......
-
Lokey v. Ward
... ... v. Lockerd, 202 Ala. 330, 80 So. 412; Hendley v ... Chabert, 189 Ala. 258, 65 So. 993; Elyton Land Co ... v. Morgan, 88 Ala. 434, 7 So. 249; Atlantic Glass ... Co. v. Paulk, 83 Ala. 404, 3 ... ...