Ewart-Brewer Motor Co. v. Cunningham
| Decision Date | 16 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 356 |
| Citation | 213 Ala. 391,104 So. 789 |
| Parties | EWART-BREWER MOTOR CO. v. CUNNINGHAM. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1925
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.
Action by E.N. Cunningham against the Ewart-Brewer Motor Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code of 1923, § 7326. Reversed and remanded.
See also, 19 Ala.App. 584, 99 So. 834.
Haley & Haley, and Harsh, Harsh & Harsh, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
George Frey and W.B. Harrison, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
It is thoroughly well settled under our present statute (section 8597, Code 1923; Gen.Acts 1915, pp. 939, 940) that, when the plaintiff has indorsed upon his summons and complaint a demand for trial by jury, he cannot thereafter withdraw his demand or waive trial by jury without the consent of the defendant, and that this applies to the ascertainment of damages on a writ of inquiry after a judgment by default. Ex parte Florida Nursery & Trading Co., 201 Ala. 97, 77 So. 391; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bannister, 201 Ala. 681 79 So. 253; Prudential Casualty Co. v. Kerr, 202 Ala. 259, 80 So. 97.
Where the plaintiff has thus demanded a jury, and has proceeded to judgment against the defendant by default, the execution of a writ of inquiry, and judgment thereon for the damages ascertained, without the intervention of a jury, will be held erroneous on appeal, unless the record affirmatively shows that the defendant consented thereto. Hartford Fire Ins. Co v. Bannister, supra; Ex parte Florida Nursery & Trading Co., supra.
Counsel for appellee conceive that this consent is sufficiently shown by the judgment entry, which contains the following recital:
"On this the 15th day of January, 1923, came the plaintiff by his attorney, and moves the court to assess his damages, and, it appearing to the court that the demand for jury in this cause has been withdrawn, the court, upon plaintiff's motion, proceeds to hear and determine this cause."
But the recital that the plaintiff came--the defendant never having been before the court, and being then in default--does not permit the presumption that the defendant also came, for it suggests quite the contrary. So the recital that "the demand for jury in this cause has been withdrawn" can mean nothing more nor less than that the demand was withdrawn by the party who made it, for no one else could have withdrawn it. In fact, that recital was based on a showing of the record proper that the plaintiff came on that day, "and, with leave of the court first had and obtained, withdraws his demand for a jury in said cause."
When the law requires an exceptional condition, used as a basis for exceptional action, to affirmatively appear of record, very clearly the ordinary presumptions in favor of the regularity of the proceeding do not apply. The record should have shown in this case that the defendants consented to the withdrawal of the plaintiff's demand for a jury, or that they appeared and otherwise waived such a trial. The cases cited by counsel for appellee, including Knight v. Farrell, 113 Ala. 258, 20 So. 974, are not in point, because it affirmatively appeared that the party charged with the waiver was actually present in court.
It results that that part of the judgment which ascertained and assessed the damages was irregular and erroneous. It was rendered on January 15, 1923. On April 20, 1923, the defendants filed their motion for a rehearing under the four-month statute (section 9521, Code 1923, and the motion was granted setting aside the judgment on June 14, 1923. On June 15, 1923, the defendants filed their appeal bond for appeal from the judgment rendered for plaintiff, and on May 29, 1924, the appellee filed in the Court of Appeals his motion to dismiss the appeal, because no transcript nor certificate of appeal had been filed in the cause. The record shows, however, that a certificate of appeal was filed on November 26, 1923; that the cause was docketed, and a continuance entered on November 27, 1923; that it was again continued on April 22, 1924; and that on June 12, 1924, the motion to dismiss was submitted in the Court of Appeals; but that on November 25, 1924, that submission was set aside, the transcript was filed, and the cause was resubmitted on the motion and on the merits.
It thus appears that appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal was not made until after the cause had been twice continued at regular calls. Those...
To continue reading
Request your trial