Morgan v. Flexner

Citation16 So. 716,105 Ala. 356
PartiesMORGAN v. FLEXNER ET AL.
Decision Date19 December 1894
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from circuit court, Butler county; John P. Hubbard, Judge.

Action by Flexner & Lichten against A. L. Morgan. Plaintiffs had judgment, and from an order overruling defendant's motion to vacate the judgment, and quash a writ of venditioni exponas issued thereon, defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.

J. M. Whitehead, for appellant.

J. C. Richardson, for appellee.

McCLELLAN, J.

Motions were made by A. L. Morgan in the circuit court to set aside a judgment rendered some years previously in that court, on the ground that said judgment was void, and also to quash and set aside a venditioni exponas issued upon said alleged void judgment a short time before the motions were made. At the end of these motions as copied into the transcript is the following: "(16) Refused, and movant excepts, and is given 40 days from adjournment of court to present bill of exceptions. Hubbard, Judge." This entry, obviously copied from the trial docket, is assumed by the appellant to be a judgment of the court overruling and denying their motions, and from it, as such, this appeal is prosecuted. But it is not a judgment, but only a docket memorandum of the presiding judge, intended and operating merely as a direction to the clerk as to what judgment should be entered on the records of the court. It may never have been acted on by the clerk, and will not support an appeal or an assignment of error. Baker v. Swift, 87 Ala. 530, 6 So. 153; Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 7 So. 805. The motion to dismiss the appeal must therefore prevail.

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State v. Scott
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 22 Junio 1926
    ...... hence no execution could lawfully have been issued. Wynn. v. McCraney, 156 Ala. 630 46 So. 854. In Morgan v. Flexner, 105 Ala. 356 16 So. 716, it was held that an. entry upon the trial docket by the judge upon the hearing of. a motion, "Refused, and ......
  • Ex parte Brandon
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 14 Enero 1943
    ......418; Sanford. v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee, 26 Ala.App. 197, 156 So. 858; Randall v. Worthington, 141 Ala. 497, 37 So. 594; Morgan v. Flexner & Lichten, 105 Ala. 356, 16 So. 716. . . The. order entered by Judge Bailes on May 4, 1942, although not in. the form of a ......
  • Lamont v. Marbury Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 14 Mayo 1914
    ...Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 123 Ala. 227, 26 So. 165; Baker v. Swift, 87 Ala. 530, 6 So. 153; Park v. Lide, 90 Ala. 246, 7 So. 805; Morgan v. Flexner, 105 Ala. 356, 16 So. 716; Long v. Holley, 157 Ala. 514, 47 So. Crawford v. Crawford, 119 Ala. 34, 24 So. 727; Hereford v. Combs, 126 Ala. 369, 28 So.......
  • Ex parte Louisville & N.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 29 Abril 1926
    ...Ala. 135, 39 So. 249; Ala.Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 125 Ala. 512, 28 So. 488; McDonald v. A.M.R. Co., 123 Ala. 228, 26 So. 165; Morgan v. Flexner, 105 Ala. 356, 16 So. 716; Bell v. Otto, 101 Ala. 187, 13 So. 43, 46 117. And in this jurisdiction the period of limitation begins to run from the time ......
  • 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