Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1976 |
| Citation | 331 So.2d 623 |
| Parties | Jake JEWELL v. JACKSON & WHITSITT COTTON CO., etc., et al. SC 1485. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Garrison Thompson, Selma, for appellant.
W. W. Dinning, Demopolis, for appellees.
Jake Jewell, plaintiff below, appeals from an amended decree entered by the trial court after remand by this court following appeal by him from original decree. The decree now appealed from purports to award Jewell damages against defendant below, Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Company, a Copartnership. It also ordered return of 30,472 pounds (127 bales) of cotton to him upon payment of thirty-five cents (35cents) per pound therefor by Jackson & Whitsitt.
This is the second appearance of this case before this court. The decision of this court, dated 8 May 1975, 'affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.' Jewell v. Jackson v. Whitsitt Cotton Co., 294 Ala. 112, 313 So.2d 157.
For the genesis, nature and history of the litigation to 8 May 1975 see Jewell, supra. In that opinion this court found the trial court misapplied the law to the facts; Justice Merrill writing:
'* * * the court erred in requiring that
Upon remand, proceedings were held for the purpose of determining how the trial court should comply with the Supreme Court's decision and opinion. Contentions of the parties regarding application of this court's order were heard. Closure of the proceedings was effectuated by the trial court stating:
'I am going to review the contentions of the parties and I will enter an order thereafter; that order will either order an evidentiary hearing or it will deny an evidentiary hearing and you will (be) notified as to the date it will be set for.'
Subsequently, without an evidentiary hearing, the amended decree was entered which ordered that Jackson & Whitsitt return to Jewell 127 bales of cotton for which Jackson & Whitsitt was to receive remuneration of thirty-five cents (35cents) per pound from Jewell. The trial court further ordered:
'That the said defendant, Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co., is ordered to pay to the Plaintiff a sum equal to the difference in the average price per pound of cotton of the same grade and quality as the cotton which is the subject of this law suit on May 14, 1974, and on August 7, 1975, multiplied by 30,472 pounds, together with the interest on said sum computed from May 14, 1974, to this date at the rate of 6% Per annum.'
Jewell asserts error in the entry of judgment containing that order. We reverse.
Was the judgment for damages entered after remand for a sum certain, determinable on its face without resort to extraneous facts, complete and certain in itself so as to terminate all controversies before the court between the litigants?
A final judgment is a terminative decision by a court of competent jurisdiction which demonstrates there has been complete adjudication of all matters in controversy between the litigants within the cognizance of that court. That is, it must be conclusive and certain in itself. Gandy v. Hagler, 245 Ala. 167, 16 So.2d 305; Bell v. Otts, 101 Ala. 186, 12 So. 43. All matters should be decided; damages should be assessed with specificity leaving the parties with nothing to determine on their own. A judgment for Damages to be final must, therefore, be for a sum certain determinable without resort to extraneous facts. Gandy v. Hagler, supra; Drane v. King, 21 Ala. 556.
The amended decree falls far short of the above stated criteria for a final judgment, conclusive and certain in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. Alabama Coalition For Equity, Inc.
...for damages to be final must ... be for a sum certain determinable without resort to extraneous facts." Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co., 331 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala.1976) (emphasis in original). Otherwise stated: "Where the amount of damages is an issue, ... the recognized rule of law i......
-
Ex parte James
...order cannot be considered a final, and therefore appealable, order. This Court explained the requirement in Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co., 331 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala.1976). There the Court "A final judgment is a terminative decision by a court of competent jurisdiction which demonst......
-
Waddell v. Waddell
...judgment is a terminable decision that is conclusive and certain, "`with all matters decided'"); see also Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co., 331 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala.1976) ("A final judgment is a terminative decision by a court of competent jurisdiction which demonstrates there has bee......
-
Suffield Dev. Assoc. v. Nat. Loan Investors
...or by mere mathematical computation." (Emphasis added.) 46 Am.Jur.2d 455, Judgments § 82 (2006); see also Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co., 331 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala.1976) (judgment defective when amount not discernable "without resort to extraneous facts" [emphasis added]); In re Marr......