Marx v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 03 November 1892 |
| Citation | 98 Ala. 500,11 So. 764 |
| Parties | MARX v. SANDERS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Mobile county; WILLIAM E. CLARKE, Judge.
Action by William H. Sanders against Leopold Marx for the amount due by judgment which was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in a justice of the peace court on June 7, 1884, and revived against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff in the said court on June 21, 1886. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations of six years. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals. Reversed.
The cause was tried upon the following agreed statement of facts
B B. Boone, for appellant.
Stewart Brooks, for appellee.
The first count of the complaint having been withdrawn, the only cause of action relied on was the one stated in the second count. The appellee now contends that that count is upon the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace on the scire facias, and not upon the original judgment. Construing the pleading most strongly against the pleader, it must be concluded that the plaintiff's alleged right to recover is predicated upon the original judgment. The amount sued for is claimed as "due by judgment *** rendered on June 7, 1884." That was the original judgment. The clause immediately following the particular description of that judgment, and forming a part of the same sentence "and revived and rendered against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff in the said court by the said justice of the peace on June 21, 1886," merely amounts to an allegation that the judgment sued on had been revived. The intention is not disclosed to rest the right to recover on the order made by the justice of the peace on the application to revive the original judgment.
The result would not be different if the suit is regarded as one on the judgment as revived. The following is the provision of the statute on the subject of the revival of the judgments obtained before justices of the peace, when the time has elapsed within which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quill v. Carolina Portland Cement Co.
...can have execution. It is a mere continuation of the original suit. Baker, Fry & Co. v. Ingersoll, 37 Ala. 503; Marx v. Sanders, supra [98 Ala. 500, 11 So. 764]." would appear from these declarations, and analogies of foregoing authorities, that the proceedings for scire facias are suppleme......
-
Eatman v. Goodson
...obtained. Quill v. Carolina Portland Cement Co., 220 Ala. 134, 124 So. 305; Baker, Fry & Co. v. Ingersoll, 37 Ala. 503; Marx v. Sanders, 98 Ala. 500, 11 So. 764; Mobile Drug Co. v. McCullough et al., 215 Ala. 682, 112 So. 'As a rule, in a proceeding to revive a judgment, no inquiry into the......
-
Continental Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Salt Lake City v. John H. Seely & Sons Co.
...it. Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., vol. 2, §§ 1012 and 1091; Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Robbins, 59 Neb. 170, 80 N.W. 484; Marx v. Sanders, 98 Ala. 500, 11 So. 764; Grover v. Boon, 124 Pa. 399, 16 A. Waldstein v. Williams, 101 Ark. 404, 142 S.W. 834, 37 Am. St. Rep. 1162; Eastin v. Vandorn, W......
-
McLendon v. Hepburn
...Carolina Portland Cement Co., 220 Ala. 134, 124 So. 305 [(1929)]; Baker, Fry & Co. v. Ingersoll, 37 Ala. 503 [(1861)]; Marx v. Sanders, 98 Ala. 500, 11 So. 764 [(1892)]; Mobile Drug Co. v. McCullough et al., 215 Ala. 682, 112 So. 238 36 Ala.App. at 362, 58 So.2d at 131. Allgood provides per......