Ex parte Mount

Decision Date15 January 1942
Docket Number6 Div. 919.
PartiesEx parte MOUNT.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Wilkinson & Skinner, of Birmingham, for petitioner.

Hugh A. Locke, of Birmingham, for respondent.

BROWN Justice.

This is an original petition for mandamus seeking to review an order of the circuit court of Jefferson County, the Honorable Whit Windham, Judge presiding, overruling the petitioner's motion to consolidate, for the purposes of a trial, four suits pending against him in said court with a suit brought by him against M. P. Hannon.

All of said suits, as the petition alleges, and the answer of the trial judge admits, arise out of a collision between the automobiles of the petitioner and said Hannon and are for personal injury and property damage, in consequence of alleged negligence of the driver of each car. Three of the suits against petitioner are by persons who were in Hannon's car at the time of the collision, either as passengers or invitees. The other is by Hannon against petitioner. The motion to consolidate was made in the four suits against the petitioner, and at the time the motion was filed the pleadings in each of the several suits consisted of the complaint and a demurrer thereto. Notice of the motion and the date set for hearing the same was served on the attorney of record for said plaintiffs. The motion was denied by the court, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to renew it when, and if, it developed that an issue of contributory negligence would be presented in all of said cases.

The motion is rested on § 221, Tit. 7, Code of 1940, which provides: "When causes of like nature or relative to the same question are pending before the circuit court in counties having a population of three hundred thousand or more according to the last or any future federal census, the court may make such orders and rules concerning proceedings therein as may be conformable to the usages of courts for avoiding unnecessary costs or delay in the administration of justice, and may consolidate said causes when it appears reasonable to do so."

The point is made by demurrer filed to the petition that said plaintiffs in the suits filed against petitioner are not made parties to this proceeding. No request was made for submission on the demurrer. The point, however, is without merit. Under the uniform practice, long prevailing in this court, the interest of the parties adverse to the petitioner is represented through the pleadings and answer of the trial judge who has no interest other than to present the facts and questions of law arising out of the facts. The notice of the motion and the time and place of the hearing in the trial court was all that was requisite to satisfy due process of law.

Said § 221, Tit. 7, Code of 1940, originated in the Act of the Legislature of September 13, 1935, General Acts, 1935, p 1010. The constitutionality of said act was questioned in Ex parte Ashton, 231 Ala. 497, 165 So. 773, 774, 104 A.L.R. 54. It was there observed "The primary question presented and urged is the constitutionality vel non of the act in question, and, if constitutional whether the order was within the statute and a sound exercise of judicial discretion?" [Italics supplied.]

It was there ruled that said act was constitutional and evidenced a legislative intent to adopt the federal rule expressed in § 734, Tit. 28 U.S.C.A., and its interpretation, into our procedural law.

The settled interpretation and application of the federal statute at the time of the enactment of our statute was that a motion to consolidate under said statute was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and that an order of consolidation did not destroy the identity of the several causes of action or combine them into one suit, but the causes of action remained separate and distinct and required separate verdicts as to each. Mutual Life Insurance Company v Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 12 S.Ct. 909...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • City of Birmingham v. Penuel
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 15 d4 Janeiro d4 1942
  • Ex parte Eubank
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 23 d5 Maio d5 2003
    ...attacking Judge Bahakel's ruling consolidating two felony DUI charges. However, as the Alabama Supreme Court stated in Ex parte Mount, 242 Ala. 174, 5 So.2d 637 (1942), "the exercise of the discretion by the court in granting or refusing a motion to consolidate was not reviewable by mandamu......
  • Ex parte Beard
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 14 d4 Dezembro d4 1944
    ... ... such as will 'bring about a complication of issues of ... fact, embarrassment or delay in the trial, (and) difficulty ... to the parties, the jury, and the court.' Ex parte ... Ashton, 231 Ala. 497, 501(8), 165 So. 773, 776, 104 A.L.R ... The ... third and last case, Ex parte Mount, 242 Ala. 174, 5 So.2d ... 637, was an original petition for mandamus to compel the ... Circuit Court of Jefferson County to make an order of ... consolidation of two or more actions growing out of the same ... automobile collision. The court held in that case that this ... controversy was ... ...
  • Mann v. Tire Engineers, Inc., 6 Div. 662
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 2 d4 Julho d4 1970
    ...This method of consolidation did not destroy the identity of the several causes of action, or combine them into one suit. Ex parte Mount, 242 Ala. 174, 5 So.2d 637. The motion to dismiss is denied. The judgment is, however, due to be affirmed, and it is so Affirmed. LIVINGSTON, C.J., and LA......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT