Ex parte Brickell
Citation | 204 Ala. 441,86 So. 1 |
Decision Date | 26 June 1920 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 16 |
Parties | Ex parte BRICKELL, Judge. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
On Rehearing, June 30, 1920
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition by Robert C. Brickell, as Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of said court rendered in the mandamus proceeding of W.A. Gunter v. Robert C. Brickell as Judge. Writ denied.
Callahan & Harris, of Decatur, for appellant.
W.A Gunter, of Montgomery, for appellee.
When the record shows due service of process or notice, and the judgment rendered is not void on its face, the court which rendered the judgment cannot, after the lapse of the term either alter or vacate the judgment on the motion of either of the parties. The only remedy then available is a petition for rehearing under the provisions of the Code (sections 5371-5376).
, or by bill in chancery. This proposition is too well settled to permit of further controversy. Pettus v. McClannahan, 52 Ala. 55; Buchanan v. Thomason, 70 Ala. 401; Kohn v. Haas, 95 Ala. 479, 12 So. 577; Sweeney v. Tritsch, 151 Ala. 242, 44 So. 184; Holloway v. Washington, 3 Ala. 668; Ex parte Ala. F. & I. Co., 193 Ala. 496, 69 So. 115; Givens v. Tidmore, 8 Ala. 745; Hauser v. Foley & Co., 190 Ala. 437, 67 So. 252; Murphree v. Whitley, 70 Ala. 554; Dunklin v. Wilson, 64 Ala. 162; Max J. Winkler Brokerage Co. v. Courson, 160 Ala. 374, 49 So. 341.
The common-law writ of audita querela, if it was ever in use in this state, was long since abandoned, and the writ of supersedeas is now used in its stead. Lockhart v. McElroy, 4 Ala. 573; Moore v. Bell, 13 Ala. 459; Branch Bk. v. Coleman, 20 Ala. 140, 146; Marshall v. Caudler, 21 Ala. 490; Thompson v. Lassiter, 86 Ala. 539, 6 So. 33.
The writ of supersedeas, though a common-law writ, has been regarded as a substitute for a bill in chancery, where matter not apparent of record is set up as a discharge, either legal or equitable, of the judgment sought to be enforced. Branch Bk. v. Coleman, 20 Ala. 140; Lockhart v. McElroy, 4 Ala. 573; Henderson v. P. & M. Bank, 178 Ala. 420, 59 So. 493. It is the contention of petitioner in this case that his petition to supersede the execution is in effect a bill in chancery and should be treated as such. This contention, however, cannot be sustained, in view of the restricted scope of the writ of supersedeas as defined by this court. In Thompson v. Lassiter, 86 Ala. 536, 6 So. 33 (quoted Henderson v. P. & M. Bank, 178 Ala. 420, 59 So. 493), it was said:
(Italics supplied.)
In Gravett v. Malone, 54 Ala. 19, it was said:
While conceding this limitation as a general rule, it is assumed by the Court of Appeals that it has no application to judgments sought to be impeached for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. This assumption is correct as to want of jurisdiction apparent upon the face of the record; but it is erroneous as to want of jurisdiction which can be shown only by going behind the record and impeaching it by evidence dehors. All of our decisions above recited are clear to this result.
But there is another consideration upon which the action of the Court of Appeals in granting the writ of mandamus, requiring the circuit judge to enter a supersedeas, must be sustained. The petition shows that the order and judgment of the circuit court, re-taxing the costs in Gunter v. Pollock, was made after the adjournment of the term at which the original judgment in favor of Gunter, for the debt and all costs of suit, was rendered, and without any consent thereto by the plaintiff. No doubt this was done upon the theory that for the purpose of re-taxation of costs a cause remains in fieri for at least a reasonable time, even after the lapse of the term. It was so ruled in the early case of Briley v. Hodges, 3 Port. 335, and the practice has never been disapproved, so far as we are advised, and was expressly approved in Lockwood v. Thompson & Buchmann, 198 Ala. 295, 73 So. 504.
But the practice of retaxation to relieve a party from costs which are erroneously or wrongfully taxed against him by the clerk under a general judgment for costs in favor of the other party is a radically different proposition from the affirmative taxation of such costs, or a part of them, against the other party. In Noland v. Lock, 16 Ala. 52, it was said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gulf Electric Co. v. Fried
...... demurrer, while in the other the ruling may not be reviewed. until there has been a final judgment. . . In the. case of Ex parte Highland Ave. & Belt R. Co., 105 Ala. 221,. 17 So. 182, in considering the 30-day statute as to final. judgments and decrees rendered, the opinion ...& Belt R. Co., supra, are Morris v. Corona Coal Co., 215 Ala. 47, 109 So. 278; Ex parte Bozeman,. 213 Ala. 223, 104 So. 402; Ex parte Brickell, Judge, 204 Ala. 441, 86 So. 1; Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 411,. 412, 98 So. 635; Greer v. Heyer, 216 Ala. 229, 113. So. 14; Ex parte ......
-
Tweed v. Lockton
...M. R. Co., 301 Ill. 135, 133 N. E. 710; Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N. Y. 325, 19 N. E. 842, 8 Am. St Rep. 748; Ex parte Brickell, 204 Ala. 411, 86 So. 1; Brown v. Clark, 81 Conn. 562, 71 A. 727; Kaufman v. Shain, 111 Cal. 16, 43 P. 393, 52 Am. St. Rep. 139; Maryland Steel Co. v. Marney, 91 Md. ......
-
Morris v. Corona Coal Co.
......401,. 98 So. 635; Mt. Vernon Woodbury Mills v. Judge, 200. Ala. 168, 75 So. 916; Shipp v. Shelton, 193 Ala. 658, 69 So. 102; Ex parte Schoel, 205 Ala. 248, 87 So. 801;. Ex parte Margart, 207 Ala. 604, 93 So. 505; Southern Ry. Co. v. Griffith, 177 Ala. 364, 58 So. 425; Ex parte H. ... decree had not expired. See Ex parte Bozeman, 213 Ala. 223,. 104 So. 402; Ex parte Brickell, Judge, 204 Ala. 441, 86 So. 1; McCord v. Rumsey, 19 Ala.App. 62, 95 So. 268;. Monroe County Growers' Ex. v. Harper, 20. Ala.App. 532, 103 So. ......
-
Ex parte Industrial Finance & Thrift Corp.
...151 Ala. 242, 44 So. 184; Max J. Winkler Brokerage Co. v. Courson, 160 Ala. 374, 49 So. 341; Ex parte Sparks, supra; Ex parte Brickell, Judge, 204 Ala. 441, 86 So. 1. The effect of the alleged judgment of July 20th, 1950, was to alter the final judgment of June 7, 1950, after the court had ......