Housing Authority of Birmingham Dist. v. Abney
Decision Date | 17 April 1941 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 808. |
Citation | 241 Ala. 256,2 So.2d 428 |
Parties | HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BIRMINGHAM DIST. v. ABNEY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal Dismissed May 22, 1941.
Wm L. Clark, Bryant Whitmire, and W. H. Sadler, Jr., all of Birmingham, for appellant.
Horace C. Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The appeal is by the applicant or plaintiff in an ad quod damnum proceeding instituted in the Probate Court of Jefferson County, under Chapter 286, § 7476 et seq., of the Code, Code 1940, Tit. 19, § 1 et seq., and carried to the Circuit Court by appeal as authorized by § 7492 of the Code 1923, Code 1940, Tit. 19, § 17.
The present appeal is authorized by § 6084 of the Code 1923, Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 760.
It appears from the recitals in the certificate of appeal that the judgment of the circuit court was rendered on the 5th day of December, 1940, and that the appeal was taken by giving security for costs on the 4th day of January, 1941.
Motion is here made by the appellee to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was prematurely taken, and to this end the motion alleges:
(Italics supplied.)
The motion is not verified by affidavit nor was any evidence offered to support its allegations of fact. We can not take judicial knowledge that a motion for new trial was made or is pending. However, treating as true the averments of the motion said motion for new trial had been discontinued before the security for costs was given. Code 1923, § 6670, Code 1940, Tit. 13,§ 119; Stallings v. Clark et al. 218 Ala. 31, 117 So. 467; Ex parte Margart, 207 Ala. 604, 93 So. 505.
The motion to dismiss the appeal, is therefore due to be overruled. It is so ordered.
On Resubmission.
The former order entered here overruling the motion to dismiss the appeal, has, by order of the court, been set aside, the movant allowed to amend and the motion as amended was resubmitted with proof.
The authorities seem to be agreed that a motion for a new trial may be made in ad quod damnum proceedings, after verdict fixing the damages, although the proceedings are purely statutory and the jurisdiction conferred is a limited jurisdiction, which requires strict observance of the prescribed course of procedure. Code 1923, § 7476, Code 1940, Tit. 19, § 1; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co., 92 Ala. 331, 9 So. 555; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. O'Rear et al., 200 Ala. 291, 76 So. 57; 10 R.C.L. 222 § 189; In re Owen and Memorial Parks in Detroit, 244 Mich. 377, 221 N.W. 279, 61 A.L.R. 190 and note; United States v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co., 298 U.S. 689, 56 S.Ct. 957, 80 L.Ed. 1408; 4 R.C.L. Sup. 2679,§ 189.
And the law is well settled that the effect of a motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Engel Realty Co.
... ... J ... L. Drennen, of Birmingham, for appellant ... [241 ... Ala. 238] Kenneth ... authority can serve no useful purpose here as a precedent ... ...
-
Johnson v. Foust
... ... not failed to take note of the case of Housing Authority ... v. Abney, 241 Ala. 256, 2 So.2d 428, to the ... ...
-
Ex parte Myers
... ... modification. Housing Authority v. Abney, 241 Ala ... 256, 2 So.2d 428 ... ...
-
Farmer v. Farmer
...v. Foust, 242 Ala. 659, 7 So.2d 864 (1942) the supreme court said: We have not failed to take note of the case of Housing Authority v. Abney, 241 Ala. 256, 2 So.2d 428, to the effect that a motion for a new trial timely made and continued suspends the finality of the judgment for the purpos......