Ex parte King, 7 Div. 322
| Decision Date | 06 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 322 |
| Citation | 230 Ala. 529,162 So. 275 |
| Parties | Ex parte KING. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Original petition of S.P. King for mandamus to Lamar Field, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Calhoun County.
Writ denied, and petition dismissed.
Stephen B. Coleman, of Birmingham, for petitioner.
Chas F. Douglass, of Anniston, for respondent.
This is an original application to this court for a peremptory mandamus to the circuit court of Calhoun county, sitting in equity and presided over by the Honorable Lamar Field, to set aside and vacate an order entered in the case of petitioner S.P. King, against F.M. Nixon pending on the equity docket of said court, granting said Nixon's motion to reconsider the motion theretofore made to set aside the verdict of the jury on the issue directed to be tried in the law side of said court and duly certified thereto, after said motion had been heard and overruled.
The facts alleged, and as to them there is no material dispute are that on the said Nixon's demand, under the provisions of section 9908 of the Code of 1923, an issue "out of chancery" was duly certified to the common-law court for trial, and was tried, resulting in a verdict in favor of the petitioner, King, returned into court on the 14th day of March, 1934. Thereupon Nixon moved to set the verdict aside and for a venire facias de novo. This motion was submitted to the court, presided over by the Honorable W.B. Merrill, sitting in equity, on August 25, 1934, along with a bill of exceptions taken on the jury trial, duly authenticated, and the motion was overruled, but the court did not enter a final decree on the verdict.
On February 23, 1935, Nixon filed a motion requesting the court to vacate the order overruling the motion to set aside the verdict, and reconsider the same. The last-mentioned motion was submitted to the court, Judge Field presiding, along with the motion of the petitioner, King, to strike the motion to reconsider, on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to reconsider and grant the motion to set aside the verdict and grant a venire facias de novo. The court overruled the motion to strike, vacated the order overruling the motion first filed, and ordered the issues retried.
The facts upon which the circuit court acted in reconsidering and granting the motion are not presented here for consideration; therefore, we are not concerned with the merits of the motion or the reasons impelling the circuit court to grant the same. The sole question presented here is one of power of the court to vacate the former order and reconsider and grant the motion.
It is settled that circuit courts, in the exercise of equity jurisdiction, are always open for the transaction of any business therein (Code 1923, § 6636); that they have no terms, in the sense that their jurisdiction is lost, except as to final decrees, as provided by section 6670 of the Code. Ex parte Howard (Howard v. Ridgeway, et al.), 225 Ala. 106, 142 So. 403; Ex parte Favors, 225 Ala. 675, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maya Corporation v. Smith
... ... 470 MAYA CORPORATION ET AL. v. SMITH ET AL. 8 Div. 6.Supreme Court of AlabamaMay 9, 1940 ... parte Cullinan, 224 Ala. 263, 139 So. 255, 81 A.L.R. 160, and ... Alabama at a price of $6 per acre, plus 7,000 shares of the ... preferred and common capital stock ... its rendition. Code, § 6636; Ex parte King, 230 Ala. 529, 162 ... So. 275; Van Schaick v. Goodwyn, ... ...
-
Wood v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange
...The proceeding and trial by jury as a matter of right is not an independent trial, but a part of the equitable proceeding. Ex parte King, 230 Ala. 529, 162 So. 275; Owens v. Washington, 260 Ala. 198, 69 So.2d 694. * * There being no timely motion attacking the verdict of the jury, the equit......
-
Owens v. Washington
...and trial by a jury on an issue out of chancery is not an independent trial but is a part of the equitable proceeding. Ex parte King, 230 Ala. 529, 162 So. 275; Karter v. East, 218 Ala. 536, 119 So. 662. And on appeal from the final equitable decree in cases such as the present one, this co......
-
Scott v. Leigeber
...18 So.2d 275 245 Ala. 583 SCOTT v. LEIGEBER et al. 6 Div. 210.Supreme Court of AlabamaMay 25, 1944 [18 So.2d 276] ... 514; O'Rear v. O'Rear, ... supra; Ex parte Bozeman, 213 Ala. 223, 104 So. 402; Ex parte ... King, 230 ... 62, Equity Practice, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix, was not ... intended to regulate or limit the ... ...