Johnston v. Johnston
Decision Date | 20 December 1934 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 816. |
Citation | 158 So. 528,229 Ala. 592 |
Parties | JOHNSTON v. JOHNSTON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1935.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; J. Blocker Thornton Judge.
Bill for divorce by Catherine M. Johnston against William N Johnston. From a decree for complainant, respondent appeals.
Affirmed.
Wm. V McDermott, of Mobile, for appellant.
D. R Coley, Jr., of Mobile, for appellee.
Appellee filed her bill against appellant for divorce on the ground of voluntary abandonment, praying, also, to be decreed the custody of the four children of the marriage.
From a decree granting the relief prayed, respondent appeals.
Appellant insists the decree should be reversed for want of a sufficient note of testimony as required by Chancery Rule 75.
The cause was heard on oral testimony of witnesses heard by the trial judge.
The record recites:
Then follows: "Transcript of testimony given orally, in open court, before The Honorable J. Blocker Thornton, Judge, on the 19th day of January, 1933."
The testimony of the several witnesses, naming them, is then set out.
At the "End of Testimony" appears:
The decree was rendered February 27, 1933.
We need merely reassert the long-settled proposition that rule 75 is mandatory and prohibitive. Reese v. Barker, 85 Ala. 474, 5 So. 305; Mullen v. First Nat. Bank of Montgomery, 226 Ala. 305, 146 So. 802; Potts v. Court of Commissioners of Conecuh County et al., 203 Ala. 300, 82 So. 550.
When the record shows no note of testimony, a decree granting relief in favor of complainant carrying the burden of proof, as in divorce cases, must be reversed. Reese v. Barker, supra; Brassell v. Brassell, 205 Ala. 201, 87 So. 347.
It must now be regarded as settled that rule 75 has application to causes heard on oral testimony under Code, § 6574 et seq. Lunday et al. v. Jones et al., 204 Ala. 326, 85 So. 411; Crews et al. v. State ex rel. Patterson, Solicitor, 206 Ala. 101, 89 So. 205.
In considering whether the note of testimony before us is a sufficient compliance with the rule in cases heard on oral testimony, and in view of the frequency with which the question has recurred in varying forms, we deem it proper to further consider the purpose of the rule and the extent of its application to such cases.
The pertinent portion of rule 75 reads: Code of 1928, pp. 1948-1949, rule 75.
This rule was adopted in 1854, and comes down without change to this date. 24 Ala. page xv, rule 71.
Turner v. Turner, 193 Ala. 424, 431, 432, 69 So. 503, 506; Carson et al. v. Sleigh, 201 Ala. 373, 78 So. 229.
A primary purpose of the rule, as applied to cases where evidence is taken by deposition, is to make such testimony a part of the record, defining by note of testimony what shall be included in the record to be considered by the chancellor, and included in the transcript on appeal. This is manifest from the rule itself. Accordingly, it is the settled construction that the pleadings, already a part of the record, need not be included in the note of testimony. Sellers v. Farmer, 147 Ala. 446, 41 So. 291; Coleman v. Birmingham Fertilizer Co. et al., 208 Ala. 160, 93 So. 904; Conner v. State ex rel. Perry, Deputy Solicitor, 212 Ala. 360, 102 So. 809.
Our statute providing for hearings on oral testimony, enacted long since the rule in question, is to be given effect according to its manifest intent, and the rule made applicable so far as consistent with such intent.
Such oral testimony is received for consideration by the court as it comes from the mouths of the witnesses. Their names, personal appearance, demeanor on the stand, intelligence, and bias are all matters incident to, or, it may be said, a part of, the evidence received, and held in the breast of the judge.
Neither the shorthand notes of the court reporter, nor the transcript of same to be made later, constitutes the testimony. So far as the chancellor is concerned, the transcript is a complete memorandum of the testimony which he may use to refresh his memory. But he is not required to await making and filing of a transcript before rendering his decree.
"A part of the record," within the meaning of rule 75 means part of the documents on file, made part of the record by the note of testimony. As applied to hearings on oral testimony, the transcript of such testimony is the document which is to be noted and become a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weatherwax v. Heflin
... ... v ... Commercial Realty Co., 236 Ala. 358, 182 So. 31; ... Allison Lumber Co. v. Campbell, 225 Ala. 609, 144 ... So. 574; Johnston v. Johnston, 229 Ala. 592, 158 So ... We ... find that no note of submission by complainants is contained ... in the record. There is ... ...
-
Home Ins. Co. v. Shriner, 1 Div. 923a
... ... submission of a suit in equity. It has persisted in its ... present form since 1854. 24 Ala. p. xv, rule 71; Johnston ... v. Johnston, 229 Ala. 592, 158 So. 528. The procedure ... was long since abandoned in practice, if it ever ... existed--certainly not in the ... ...
-
Boswell v. Longshore, 2 Div. 147.
... ... 358, 182 ... So. 31; Fischer v. Pope, 229 Ala. 170, 155 So. 579; ... Home Insurance Co. v. Shriner, 235 Ala. 65, 177 So ... 897; Johnston v. Johnston, 229 Ala. 592, 158 So ... 528; Jones v. First National Bank, 236 Ala. 606, 184 ... So. 168. And the rule embraces testimony taken ... ...
-
State Tax Commission v. Commercial Realty Co., 6 Div. 255.
... ... This rule is mandatory and testimony not noted can not be ... considered. Allison Lumber Co. v. Campbell, 225 Ala ... 609, 144 So. 574; Johnston v. Johnston, 229 Ala ... 592, 594, 158 So. 528 ... While ... the unambiguous recitals of a judgment entry are conclusive ... and ... ...