Ex parte State ex rel. Breitling

Decision Date05 June 1930
Docket Number2 Div. 965.
Citation128 So. 788,221 Ala. 398
PartiesEX PARTE STATE EX REL. BREITLING.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied June 19, 1930.

Petition of the State, on the relation of G. Tom Breitling, for mandamus to Hon. Benj. F. Elmore, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Marengo County.

Writ denied.

The petition shows that a summons and complaint in a cause in which G. Tom Breitling was styled plaintiff, and the Southern Railway Company defendant, was deposited in the mail in Selma, Ala., on March 20, 1929, directed to the clerk of the circuit court of Marengo county, at Linden, Ala.; that same arrived at Linden on the afternoon of the same day, and was placed in the post office box provided by said clerk; that the clerk's office was closed from March 18th to March 26th, and neither the clerk nor any one authorized to act for him was in Linden during said period; that the clerk returned to his office on March 27th, and indorsed said summons and complaint as filed on said date; that petitioner moved the respondent trial judge to direct the clerk to change the date of filing so as to make the same speak the truth from March 27 to March 21, 1929; and that said motion was by the respondent overruled.

Hobbs Craig & Brown, of Selma, for petitioner.

Benj. F. Elmore, of Demopolis, for respondent.

GARDNER J.

Under the provisions of section 8967, Code 1923, appellant's suit commenced upon the filing of his complaint in the office of the clerk, and the result of this appeal turns upon the proper construction of this statute.

Confessedly the complaint was not filed in the clerk's office on the date insisted upon in this proceeding, but was placed in the mail and remained at the post office, doubtless in the post office box of the clerk. As pointed out by the authorities the word "file" is derived from the Latin word "filum," a thread, and its application is drawn from the ancient practice of placing papers on a thread or wire for ready reference. In Words and Phrases, Second Series, vol. 2, page 531, is the following definition "There can be no 'filing' of a paper in a legal sense except by its delivery to an official whose duty it is to file papers and who is required to keep and maintain an office or other public place for their deposit, and the paper must either be delivered personally to such officer with the intent that the same shall be filed by him, or delivered at the place where the same...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Brandon v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • March 17, 1936
    ... ... v ... Harry, 215 Ala. 458, 111 So. 41; Kearley v. State ex ... rel. Hamilton [223 Ala. 548] 137. So. 424.' ... "The ... authorities convince us that the ... State ex rel. Attorney General, 185 Ala. 347, 64 So ... 310, supra. See, also, Ex parte State ex rel. Breitling, 221 ... Ala. 398, 128 So. 788; Taylor v. Lunsford, 26 ... Ala.App ... ...
  • Campbell v. Mason
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • May 18, 1937
    ...office; the file mark being merely evidence of the filing and not an essential element. To the same effect, see Ex parte State ex rel. Breitling, 221 Ala. 398, 128 So. 788; Vickers v. Glenn, 102 Fla. 535, 136 So. Walls v. Evans, 38 Wyo. 103, 265 P. 29; People v. Ramirez, 112 Cal.App. 507, 2......
  • Larson v. N. D. Workforce Safety & Ins.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 8, 2022
    ...statute has consistently meant to place in the custody of the officer charged with keeping the record); Ex parte State ex rel. Breitling , 221 Ala. 398, 128 So. 788, 788-89 (1930) (holding the word "file" in the statute requires delivery to the required official); Lambert v. Home Fed. Sav. ......
  • Ex Parte Jett
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 20, 2007
    ...its opinion in the instant case, Covington Bros. Motor Co. v. Robinson, 239 Ala. 226, 194 So. 663 (1940), and Ex parte State ex rel. Breitling, 221 Ala. 398, 128 So. 788 (1930), did not address this specific issue. Robinson held that the referee in a bankruptcy case is, for all intents and ......
  • 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