Flack v. Andrews
Decision Date | 05 February 1889 |
Citation | 86 Ala. 395,5 So. 452 |
Parties | FLACK ET AL. v. ANDREWS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Chambers county; W. J. SAMFORD, Special Judge.
This action was brought by Frank M. Flack and Philip M. Wales against Joseph E. Andrews, and sought to recover the amount due upon a judgment. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.
N D. Denson, for appellants.
J M. & E. M. Oliver, for appellee.
The complaint declares on a judgment alleged to have been rendered in favor of plaintiffs, who are appellants, against defendant, in the supreme court of New York, held for the county of Rensselaer. The defendant pleaded nul tiel record. In order to establish their cause of action, the plaintiffs offered to read in evidence an authenticated transcript of a suit and proceedings therein, instituted by them against defendant in the supreme court of New York. To the introduction in evidence of the transcript the defendant objected, which objection was sustained by the court, and the transcript excluded. No objection was made on the ground that the transcript was not properly authenticated. The specified ground of objection is that it does not show any judgment rendered by the court against defendant. The material requisites of a sufficient judgment are well settled. As said in Spence v. Simmons, 16 Ala. 828 "a judgment should show the plaintiff who recovers, the defendant against whom the recovery is had, and the specific thing or amount of money recovered." This statement of the general rule, however, must not be understood as meaning that only the mere entry of what the court considered or adjudged, disconnected from the other parts of the record can be looked to, and that such entry itself must show, in terms, the material requisites. In the absence of statutory or positive regulations, each department of the judiciary may establish its own formula of proceeding. In Freeman on Judgments, § 50, speaking of the tests of the sufficiency of a judgment, the author observes: While a judgment must designate the party in whose favor, and the party against whom, it is given, with such certainty that the proper officer may know for whom, and against whose property, to issue execution, it is not necessary that the names of the parties should be stated in the body of the judgment. Whenever the judgment entry is not clear and perfect on its face, it should be interpreted in the light of the pleadings, and of the entire record. The judgment roll, as understood in the American practice, must be looked to, and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... not guilty as to the engineer. Burgin v. Sugg, 210 ... Ala. 142, 97 So. 216; Wilder v. Bush, 201 Ala. 21, ... 75 So. 143; Flack v. Andrews, 86 Ala. 395, 5 So ... 452; Clinton Co. v. Bradford, 200 Ala. 308, 76 So ... 74. And the judgment for costs as to the defendant ... ...
-
Burgin v. Sugg
...of doubt as to whether "the complainant" in the decree was D. F. Sugg is dissipated by reference to the pleadings. In Flack v. Andrews, 86 Ala. 395, 5 So. 452, it said: "The rule is correctly stated in Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 332, *** 'that every judgment of a court of justice must ei......
-
Woodward Iron Co. v. Dean
... ... and in such respects the decree is self-corrective ... Burgin v. Sugg, 210 Ala. 142, 97 So. 216; Flack ... v. Andrews, 86 Ala. 395, 5 So. 452; Clinton Min. Co ... v. Bradford, 200 Ala. 308, 312, 76 So. 74, and ... authorities ... The ... ...
-
Penney v. State
... ... Ala. 626, 87 So. 103; Town of Clio v. Lee, 199 Ala ... 145, 74 So. 243; Burgin et al. v. Sugg et al., 210 ... Ala. 142, 144, 97 So. 216; Flack v. Andrews, 86 Ala ... 395, 5 So. 452; Merchants' Bank & Trust Co. v. J. A ... Elliot & Son, 16 Ala. App. 620, 80 So. 624. Cases where ... there ... ...