Knight v. Farrell

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation20 So. 974,113 Ala. 258
Decision Date27 November 1896

Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.

The appellees, Farrell & Reynolds, brought an action against the appellants, Ray Knight, and Mrs. Ray Knight, to recover for work and labor done and material furnished by the plaintiffs to the defendants. Upon the filing of the complaint, the plaintiffs did not ask for a trial by jury; but upon the interposition of demurrers to the complaint by defendants there was indorsed upon the demurrers a demand by the defendants for a trial by jury. The subsequent rulings of the court are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Upon the court's overruling the motion of the defendants to transfer and set the case for trial upon the regular nonjury civil trial docket, and refusing to grant said motion, the defendants duly excepted. The evidence which was introduced upon the hearing of this motion is also sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendants appeal and assign as error the judgment of the court refusing to grant their motion. They also make application in the alternative for a writ of mandamus to the judge of the city court, to require him to grant said motion, and enter the case on the nonjury docket. Rule nisi for mandamus granted.

John B Knox and Pelham & Acker, for appellants,

D. D McLeod, for appellees.


The requirements of section 6 of the act to amend the act creating the city court of Anniston, touching the trial of civil causes without a jury, and the waiver of a jury trial have been held, for the purpose of securing such a trial, to be mandatory. Ex parte Ansley (Ala.) 18 So. 242. By the terms of the act, the plaintiff to be entitled to a trial by jury must "at the commencement of the suit, or when the cause is at issue" indorse "such demand on the summons and complaint or other original process, or by defendant or other party, at his appearance, by endorsing such demand in writing on the plea, or demurrer, or other pleadings," etc. If this is not done, the issue and question of fact shall be tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury. Acts 1892-93, p. 338. The plaintiffs in this case, did not demand a jury for its trial, and, therefore, so far as they were concerned, under this statute, the right for such a trial was forever waived, unless, if it should ever happen, after a trial by the court, a new trial should be granted, or when the judgment rendered should be reversed and remanded by the supreme court, in either of which contingencies, either party having waived, may demand a jury. The defendants, however, when they appeared and filed a demurrer to the complaint, demanded a jury trial and paid the jury tax, all in the manner as required by the statute. This was done in April, 1895. At the October term following, the demurrer was considered and passed on by the court. Some of the grounds assigned were overruled and some sustained. Thereupon, the defendants, as appears, in open court, in the presence of plaintiffs' counsel and without objection, withdrew their demand for a jury which had been previously made, and an order was made by the court, and entered as follows: "Oct. 7, 1895. The defendants withdraw their demand for a jury." This order, as appears from the abstract, was entered on the minutes of the court. It seems, the clerk did not transfer said cause from the jury to the nonjury trial docket, and at the January term, 1896, the defendants moved the court to transfer or set said cause for trial on the regular nonjury civil trial docket of the court, which motion the court overruled and rendered judgment against ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Ex parte Jackson, 8 Div. 676
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 19, 1925
    ...... the duty as by the writ commanded." State ex rel. Pinney v. Williams, 69 Ala. 311; Knight v. Farrell &. Reynolds, 113 Ala. 258, 20 So. 974. . . The. nature of and proceedings incident to such petition in the. English and ......
  • Grandin v. Southern Pac. Co., 1709
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • April 19, 1906
    ...... power, and are, therefore, valid." (Farwell v. Murray, 104 Cal. 464; Conneau v. Geis, 73 Cal. 176; Hillman v. McWilliams, 70 Cal. 447; Knight. v. Farrell, 113 Ala. 258; Plank Road Co. v. Hopkins, 69 Mich. 10; Chaslon v. Martin, 81. N.C. 51; Sale v. Miggett, 25 S.C. 72; Gleaves v. ......
  • Prudential Cas. Co. v. Kerr, 6 Div. 778
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 20, 1918
    ...practically the same. It would appear that the decision in the latter case has application here. This is not contrary to Knight v. Farrell, 113 Ala. 258, 20 So. 974, the plaintiff had waived a jury trial by failure to demand a jury under the statute. The fact that defendant thereafter deman......
  • Henry v. First Exch. Bank (In re First Exch. Bank), 1111353.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 6, 2013 apply only to the particular trial at hand. See, e.g., Ex parte Ansley, 107 Ala. 613, 18 So. 242 (1895) ; Knight v. Farrell & Reynolds, 113 Ala. 258, 20 So. 974 (1896).In a broad sense, the issue in this case is when and under what conditions may the right to a jury trial in a civil case......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT