General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Eaton

• Decision Date: 06 October 1931
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 384.
• Citation: 137 So. 780,24 Ala.App. 533
• Parties: GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. EATON.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

137 So. 780

24 Ala.App. 533

GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. EATON.

8 Div. 384.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

October 6, 1931

Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1931.

Appeal from Morgan County Court; W. T. Lowe, Judge.

Claim suit between G. A. Eaton, plaintiff, and the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, claimant. From a judgment for plaintiff, claimant appeals.

Affirmed.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Eaton, 137 So. 781.

Ben L Britnell and Eyster & Eyster, all of Decatur, and London Yancey & Brower and Al. G. Rives, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

J. Marvin Kelley, of Hartselle, for appellee.

SAMFORD J.

Under section 35, Local Acts 1927, pp. 219, 225, the venue of this suit is in the Hartselle division of the county court of Morgan county.

Under the agreed statement of facts the plaintiff obtained a judgment, with a lien on the automobile truck here involved on June 25, 1927. This judgment ran against the defendant Bennie Parker, in an attachment suit to enforce a mechanic's lien on the truck. We know of no law which would authorize the justice of the peace, rendering the judgment, to open, set aside, or vacate this judgment on June 28th or three days later. So that, except for certain rights of review by appeal, certiorari, and kindred remedies, a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace, is final on and after the adjournment of his court. 35 Corpus Juris, 678 (308).

Where as in this case, the justice opened, or attempted to open the judgment on June 28th and on August 8th such acts were void. It is laid down as a general rule, to which we find no exceptions, that, where a justice opens a judgment without authority to do so, all proceedings subsequent to the entry of the original judgment are void. 35 Corpus Juris, 679 (308).

There are cases decided by our Supreme Court which seem to hold that section 6898 of the Code of 1923 is a protection to judgment creditors without a lien, such as Hall & Farley, Trustees, v. Griffin, 119 Ala. 214, 24 So. 27, and Griffin et al. v. Hall & Farley, Trustees, 129 Ala. 289, 29 So. 783, while other cases, notably Sparks v. Weatherly, 176 Ala. 324, 58 So. 280, and Danner et al. v. Crew, 137 Ala. 617, 34 So. 822, seem to be authority for the contention that a judgment without a lien is not so protected by the recordation statutes. As we see this case, the distinction is of no moment, as we hold that the plaintiff held a judgment, with a lien on the property levied on.

It follows from the above that the retention title contract under which claimant claims title, not having...