McGowan v. Simmons
Decision Date | 05 February 1914 |
Parties | McGOWAN v. SIMMONS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Action by C.W. Simmons against Nick McGowan. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
R.H Arrington, of Enterprise, and H.L. Martin, of Ozark, for appellant.
W.W Sanders, of Elba, for appellee.
Before the submission of this cause, the appellee obtained a certiorari to the trial court, to perfect the record. Before the clerk of the circuit court made his return to the certiorari, appellee moved in the trial court to have the judgment appealed from, which was a judgment by default amended nunc pro tunc, so as to show that a jury was had, to ascertain the amount of damages; the claim or demand sued on being one in which a jury was necessary to ascertain the amount of damages.
The appellant, defendant in the court below, resisted the motion to amend; and here assigns several errors as to the admission of evidence, as to the order allowing the motion, and as to the amendment of the judgment.
There was no error in allowing the bench notes of the trial judge which show that a jury was ordered and came, to ascertain and fix the amount of damages. This has been repeatedly held to be proper; the bench notes being quasi record matter.
In Nabors v. Meredith, 67 Ala. 333, 335, it is said . ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Biddle, 8 Div. 661
...any final judgment is available. Tippins v. Peters, 103 Ala. 196, 15 So. 564; Robertson v. King, 120 Ala. 459, 24 So. 929; McGowan v. Simmons, 185 Ala. 310, 64 So. 569; Campbell v. Beyers, 189 Ala. 307, 66 So. 651; Home Ins. Co. v. Shriner, 235 Ala. 65, 177 So. 897; Id., 235 Ala. 165, 177 S......
-
Ex parte Brandon
...1940. Campbell v. Beyers et al., supra; Lockwood v. Thompson & Buchmann, supra; Cosby v. State, 202 Ala. 419, 80 So. 803; McGowan v. Simmons, 185 Ala. 310, 64 So. 569. writ of mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy which is only to be granted when there is a clear specific legal right fo......
-
Webb v. French
...202 Ala. 419, 80 So. 803; Curry v. State, 203 Ala. 239, 241, 82 So. 489; Hillens v. Brinsfield, 113 Ala. 304, 21 So. 208; McGowan v. Simmons, 185 Ala. 310, 64 So. 569. computation of time for review was considered in Ex parte Louisville & N. R. Co. (Langston v. Louisville & N. R. Co.), 214 ......
- Hoobler v. International Harvester Co. of America