Ex parte Overton
Decision Date | 18 January 1912 |
Parties | EX PARTE OVERTON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Application by Andy J. Overton for writ of mandamus directed against the judge of the circuit court of Jefferson county. Writ refused.
Sepsalon & Davis, for petitioner.
A. C. & H. R. Howze, for respondent.
This is an original application to this court for a writ of mandamus. It appears that the petitioner brought his suit in the circuit court of Jefferson county against Octavia A. Wood. On October 7, 1911, more than 30 days after due service of the summons and complaint, defendant being in default, plaintiff had judgment by default with leave to execute a writ of inquiry for the assessment of damages. On November 10, 1911 the inquiry was executed and damages assessed by a jury. Subsequently the defendant moved the court to set aside the judgment and for leave to plead to the merits, averring that she had been prevented from making defense by surprise accident, and mistake, and that she had a just, full, and complete defense. On November 18, 1911, the court set aside the verdict and judgment. Petitioner prays that the judge of the circuit court be required to vacate, annul, and set aside the judgment by which his judgment was vacated, annulled, and set aside.
The act regulating the practice in the circuit court of Jefferson (Local Acts 1888-89, p. 797) provides in section 11 that "final judgments rendered in said court shall, after the expiration of 30 days from their rendition, be taken and deemed as completely beyond the control of the court as if the term of said court at which said judgments are rendered had ended at the end of said 30 days." The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and it is not alleged that the court's ruling was infected with error except that the motion and the judgment were made and rendered more than 30 days after the judgment by default. But the limitation of 30 days is placed upon the power of the court to interfere with judgments which are final. Interlocutory judgments are as much under the control of the court as they ever were. The judgment by default was an interlocutory judgment. It is generally held that a final judgment cannot be entered where the damages are, as in this case, unliquidated, or the amount of plaintiff's claim uncertain or indeterminate. There must first be an interlocutory judgment by default, and the final judgment is entered after...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte U.S. Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corp.
... ... Before the final judgment is entered, while the court retains ... control over it, or after it is vacated, the court also ... retains control over the interlocutory judgment. Ex parte ... Bozeman, 213 Ala. 223, 104 So. 402; Ex parte Overton, 174 ... Ala. 256, 57 So. 434; Hendley v. Chabert, 189 Ala ... 258, 65 So. 993 ... The ... original motion filed within 30 days was rested upon the ... ground that interrogatories had been filed to plaintiff, ... under the statute, which had not been answered at the time ... ...
-
Ex parte Haisten
... ... defendant, was merely an interlocutory order, and could be ... set aside at any time until the entry of the judgment on the ... assessment of damages. Ex parte Richerzhagen, 216 Ala. 262, ... 113 So. 85; Ex parte Mason, 213 Ala. 279, 104 So. 523; Ex ... parte Overton, 174 Ala. 256, 57 So. 434 ... It ... follows that the writ of mandamus prayed for will be, and is, ... Writ ... ANDERSON, ... C.J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., ... ...
-
Vestavia Country Club v. Armstrong, 6 Div. 472
...rendering separate final judgments, at different times.' Ex parte Mason, 213 Ala. 279, 104 So. 523, 524. As we said in Ex parte Overton, 174 Ala. 256, 258, 57 So. 434: 'But the limitation of 30 days is placed upon the power of the court to interfere with judgments which are final. Interlocu......
-
Blankenship v. Hail
...a final judgment, and was therefore in fieri, not only when the last motion was made, but when the modification was made. Ex parte Overton, 174 Ala. 256, 57 So. 434, the act which is the predecessor of section 6670 of the Code was construed as applicable only to final judgments and decrees.......