Hodge v. Joy
Decision Date | 10 November 1921 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 210. |
Citation | 92 So. 171,207 Ala. 198 |
Parties | HODGE ET AL. v. JOY ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1922.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; A. P. Agee, Judge.
Bill by Ethel Clifford Joy and J. A. Clifford, as heirs at law of Mrs. Annie Clifford, against H. L. Hodge and Michael Clifford, to establish and enforce the execution of a parol trust in certain property, or to have declared a resulting trust in their favor. From the decree granting the relief prayed, respondents appeal. Affirmed.
Ross Blackmon, of Anniston, J. J. Mayfield, of Montgomery, and Rutherford Lapsley and J. B. Holman, Jr., both of Anniston for appellants.
Knox Acker, Sterne & Liles, of Anniston, for appellees.
The final decree is dated January 7, 1921; notes of testimony on submission are of date December 16, 1920, and the date of closing the taking of testimony in open court April 29, 1920. The complainants' note of testimony embraced the testimony of the witnesses named, and recited to have been "taken in open court"; that of respondents was upon depositions of the witnesses indicated. Appellant has transmitted to the clerk of this court stenographic notes purported to have been filed in the circuit court July 28 1920, by the official reporter, for the purpose of reference to ascertain who was the presiding judge at the taking of the testimony on which the submission was had.
We need only refer to and consider the record proper and pertinent facts of which the court takes judicial knowledge to ascertain whether a material part of this testimony was "taken in open court" before the judge who rendered the final decree. It was to testimony voluntarily taken in open court ore tenus by the parties that the rule of presumption was given application in chancery cases. Brassell v. Brassell, 205 Ala. 201, 87 So. 347; McSwean v. McSwean, 204 Ala. 663, 86 So. 646; Ray v. Watkins, 203 Ala. 683, 85 So. 25; Andrews v. Grey, 199 Ala. 152, 74 So. 62. This action of the parties in so taking the testimony was the reason for application in chancery cases of the rule at law ( Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52; Acts 1915, p. 705), notwithstanding section 5955, subd. 1, of the Code and the right or provisions of the statute for taking evidence by deposition. It is held that, not having taken testimony ore tenus in open court on any issue of fact, the rule of the statute, section 5955, subd. 1, is imperative as a declared legislative intent (Johnston v. Fondren, 204 Ala. 656, 87 So. 94; Freeman v. Blount, 172 Ala. 655, 659, 660, 55 So. 293; Claflin v. Muscogee Mfg. Co., 127 Ala. 376, 383, 384, 30 So. 555; Woodrow v. Hawving, 105 Ala. 240, 246, 16 So. 720; McWilliams v. Phillips, 71 Ala. 80). Having waived or been deprived of the right to a review without presumption in this court, by the taking of testimony ore tenus in open court as to one presiding judge, appellants' right under the statute could not be said to have been so affected by taking testimony ore tenus in open court before a different judge (not presiding when the testimony was so taken) rendering the final decree in the case. As long as the reason for a rule exists, so long does that rule prevail; when the reason ceases, the rule fails. Betts v. Ward, 196 Ala. 248, 72 So. 110; Bank of Montg. v. Plannett's Adm'r, 37 Ala. 222. See, also, L. & N. v. Abernathy, 197 Ala. 512, 533, 73 So. 103.
The record and facts of which the court takes judicial knowledge are sufficient, since facts judicially known are not required to be pleaded or proved. Moon v. Hines, 205 Ala. 355, 87 So. 603, 605, 13 A. L. R. 1020. Facts of judicial knowledge are held to be those concerning the various commissioned officers of the state and the extent of their authority (Casey v. Bryce, 173 Ala. 129, 55 So. 810; Cary v. State, 76 Ala. 78; Miller v. McMillan, 4 Ala. 527; Ingram v. State, 27 Ala. 17); the expiration of their terms of office (Ragland v. Wynn's Adm'r, 37 Ala. 32; Coleman v. State, 63 Ala. 93); the terms of the circuit courts ( Lindsay v. Williams, 17 Ala. 229; Rodgers v. State, 50 Ala. 102); and that the court convened on a certain day (McMullan v. Long [Ala.] 39 So. 777); tables of mortality (Gordon v. Tweedy, 74 Ala. 232, 49 Am. Rep. 813); the extended development of the iron industry in the state, etc. (Clifton Iron Co. v. Dye, 87 Ala. 468, 6 So. 192); general panics and financial disturbances and their general effect on the value of property (L. & N. v. Holland, 173 Ala. 675, 690, 55 So. 1001; Randle v. Winona Coal Co. (Ala. Sup.) 89 So. 790); such facts as the Acts of Congress and general orders of the departments of government (M. J. & K. C. v. Bromberg, 141 Ala. 258, 282, 37 So. 395; Webb v. White Eng. Corp., 204 Ala. 429, 85 So. 729; Moon v. Hines, supra Ensley v. Simpson, 166 Ala. 366, 383, 52 So. 61.)
By the analogy of the foregoing decisions this court judicially knows that when the testimony was taken by consent of the instant parties in open court anterior to and on April 29, 1920, Judge Merrill was presiding judge of the circuit embracing Calhoun county; and the court further has judicial knowledge of the fact that Judge A. P. Agee, rendering the final decree, was not a presiding judge of the circuit court in this state on or before the dates on which the transcript shows the evidence in question was taken. The fact that Judge Merrill was presiding when a portion of the testimony was taken ore tenus in open court is shown by two questions propounded to witness by appellees, referring to or using Judge Merrill's name as the judge then presiding. It is unnecessary to remark that we have the right of recourse to all sources of specific information for verification of a fact of which the court takes judicial knowledge. 1 Greenl. Ev. (14th Ed.), § 6; 23 Cor. Jur. § 2001, p. 169. In Gordon v. Tweedy, supra, it was said:
74 Ala. 237, 49 Am. Rep. 813.
That we do not give application in this case to the rule of Brassell v. Brassell, supra, and other cases cited, is not by reason of an examination of the stenographic notes transmitted to the clerk of this court, but from the intrinsic evidence contained in the transcript and the foregoing fact, of which judicial knowledge is taken.
We are thus brought to a consideration of the evidence under the rule of section 5955, subdivision 1, of the Code, requiring this court to weigh the evidence and be not influenced by the decision of the trial court upon the facts; to try the same de novo without presumptions in favor of the findings of fact by the circuit court. Johnston v. Fondren, supra; Porter v. Henderson, 204 Ala. 564, 86 So. 531.
And on the same day the consideration of said written instruments was given further expression by Clifford's chattel mortgage to "F. G. Warden trustee for the use and benefit of the Alabama Hotel Company," reciting the indebtedness of $22,000, evidenced by the seven promissory notes due, respectively, March 17, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 1919, 1920, and 1921; and to secure the payment of said notes, granted, bargained, sold, and conveyed unto F. G. Warden as trustee for the use and benefit of the Alabama Hotel Company "all the furniture and fixtures now contained in the Alabama Hotel in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sadler v. Radcliff
... ... "I wish to recall my offer for the sale of my property ... on Mon Luis Island." ... This ... court takes judicial knowledge of Mobile Bay, its shores, and ... islands. Kay & Son v. Ala. Cotton & Grain Co., 211 ... Ala. 454, 100 So. 863; Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, ... 92 So. 171; McGowin, etc., Co. v. Camp, etc., Co., ... 16 Ala.App. 283, 77 So. 433 ... In ... Campbell v. Lombardo, 153 Ala. 489, 44 So. 862, the ... bill was for specific performance of a contract, receipt for ... part payment describing the lot, reciting ... ...
-
Lowery v. May
... ... It ... cannot be successfully controverted that Lowery had the right ... to bring the proper parties before the court in order that, ... according to the facts and the law of the case, full and ... complete justice in the premises be done as to the ... subject-matter ( Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So ... 171), under the maxim that courts of equity "delight to ... do justice, and not by halves." That is to say, in a ... measure every such case must be governed "by what is ... convenient and equitable" under its own facts, subject ... to "the recognized ... ...
-
Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.
...Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 201, 92 So. 171. It is unnecessary to consider the question of necessary or proper parties. Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So. 171. This has been decided on former appeal, and the trial has conformed to that former ruling. Catts v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co., 212 Ala......
-
Dulion v. Folkes
... ... v ... Koch, 143 N.W. 952, 32 S.D. 551, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... 513; Moon v. Hinds, 87 So. 603, 25 Ala. 355, 13 A ... L. R. 1020; Edwards v. Ernest, 80 So. 729, 206 Ala ... 1, 22 A. L. R. 1387; L. & N. R. Co. v. Shikle, 90 ... So. 900, 206 Ala. 494; Hodge v. Joy, 92 So. 171, 207 ... Ala. 198; Matlock v. Johnson, 88 So. 182, 17 Ala ... 669; 23 C. J. P. 113. Accordingly when the chancellor ... proceeded to hear and determine the petition of Julia Abbey ... Dulion for removal of her disabilities of minority, the court ... took judicial notice ... ...