Ex parte White

• Decision Date: 18 June 1925
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 471
• Citation: 104 So. 844,213 Ala. 425
• Parties: Ex parte WHITE. v. WHITE. PARKER
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

104 So. 844

213 Ala. 425

Ex parte WHITE.

PARKER v. WHITE.

6 Div. 471

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 18, 1925

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1925

Petition for Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of J.H. White for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Parker v. White, 104 So. 843. Writ granted.

Sample & Kilpatrick, of Hartselle, for appellant.

W.E James, of Cullman, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

Plaintiff petitioner, recovered judgment against defendant for the amount indicated and costs in that behalf incurred. If the court had ruled otherwise than it did on motion to require security for costs under section 7252 of the Code of 1923 the plaintiff would not have been liable for such costs. The reason for the rule, not existing under the judgment rendered, was not available for a reversal at the instance of the defendant. Moreover, the trial had been entered upon before the motion was made. The statutory requirement was for the defendant's benefit, seasonably exercised. If not so invoked, it was waived. The analogy found in construction of section 7249 obtains as to section 7252. To be timely the motion must be made before entering upon the trial. First Nat. Bk. of Anniston v. Cheney, 120 Ala. 117, 23 So. 733; Brown v. Bamberger, 110 Ala. 342, 20 So. 114; Ex parte Jones, 83 Ala. 587, 3 So. 811. However, the entertaining of such motion is subject to the reasonable exercise of the discretionary power obtaining in the court as to the time within which the bond is required and may be given. Ex parte Bradshaw, 174 Ala. 243, 57 So. 16; Colley v. Atlanta Brewing & Ice Co., 196 Ala. 374, 72 So. 45; Ex parte Jones, 83 Ala. 587, 3 So. 811.

In First Nat. Bk. of Anniston v. Cheney, 120 Ala. 117, 23 So. 733, it was declared, on the authority of Ex parte Robbins, 29 Ala. 71, and Heflin v. R.M.M. & L. Co., 58 Ala. 613, that a defendant appearing, pleading, or otherwise interposing a defense, and thereby admitting himself rightfully in court, thereafter will not be permitted to raise the objection that security for costs had not been given at the commencement of the suit. For general authorities as to when the motion may be made, see 8 A.L.R. 1511, 1517, 1522, 1528, 1530, 1533, note.

The trial court abused no sound discretion, nor transcended statutory requirements, in declining, during the trial, to order plaintiff to give security for costs within the time prescribed. Code, §...