Seybold v. Magnolia Land Co.
| Decision Date | 06 July 1979 |
| Citation | 372 So.2d 865 |
| Parties | Raymond C. SEYBOLD v. MAGNOLIA LAND COMPANY and C. P. Taylor. 77-720. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bayless E. Biles, of Wilkins & Bankester, Bay Minette, for appellant.
Champ Lyons, Jr., Mobile, for appellees.
The sole issue presented presently is whether there was a Final judgment which would support an appeal.
Four plaintiffs sued a real estate company and its sales agent for breach of contract, fraud, and specific performance arising out of an alleged promise to maintain certain access roads and bridges. While two of the plaintiffs appear to be husband and wife and have the same interest in their land, the other two plaintiffs bought entirely different tracts, though they are in the same development area. While the suit arose as a result of at least three different sales transactions, it seems clear that much of the evidence of breach or fraud would be the same with all transactions.
The suit was filed by Raymond C. Seybold, C. M. Buck, Mary Mills Buck, and Dennis Cooper, against the two defendants, Magnolia Land Company and C. P. Taylor. Magnolia filed a motion to sever, alleging a "misjoinder of parties." The trial court granted this motion by a bench note entry:
It is not completely clear what the effect of this order was, whether it was intended to create 2, or 3, or 4 lawsuits out of the one, or whether it was intended merely to order separate trials. In any event, there has been a trial of Seybold's claim, and he now appeals from a directed verdict. While the effect of the order is not completely clear, it is clear, from a reading of the and the record on appeal, that after the November 21, 1977, order, the parties continued to file pleadings relating to all four plaintiffs' claims. Apparently, everything relating to all four plaintiffs' claims is present in the record in this appeal. For instance, the record contains three motions for summary judgment one by Buck, one by Cooper and one by Seybold and motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants against All plaintiffs. While the three motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs list three different sets of plaintiffs, they all carry the Same number ; Civil Action CV-77-500063.
The crucial question is: Was there, in fact, a severance under Rule 21, ARCP, or merely a determination to have separate trials under Rule 42, ARCP? Mr. Justice Bloodworth, writing for the Court in Key v. Robert M. Duke Insurance Agency, 340 So.2d 781 (Ala.1976), indicated that in answering this question, "(t)he Substance Of the court's action, not its Form, controls." 340 So.2d 783. There, the Court stated: "When, however, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seybold v. Magnolia Land Co.
...or more, but fewer than all of the . . . parties.' Rule 54(b) ARCP. As a consequence, the appeal must be dismissed." Seybold v. Magnolia Land Co., 372 So.2d 865 (Ala.1979). This appeal arises from a directed verdict entered against Plaintiff/Appellant on the grounds that his causes of actio......
-
Phillips v. Uinjax, Inc.
...340 So.2d 781, 783 (Ala.1976), quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2387 (1971). See Seybold v. Magnolia Land Co., 372 So.2d 865 (Ala.1979); Walker County Petroleum Council, Inc. v. Walker County, 368 So.2d 862 (Ala.1979); Robinson v. Computer Servicenters, Inc., ......
-
Kimbrell v. White
...Agency, 340 So.2d 781 (Ala.1976); Walker County Petroleum Council, Inc. v. Walker County, 368 So.2d 862 (Ala.1979); Seybold v. Magnolia Land Co., 372 So.2d 865 (Ala.1979); and Interstate Truck Leasing, Inc. v. Bender, 608 So.2d 716 (Ala.1992)(overruled on other grounds, State Farm Fire and ......
-
Donald v. Kimberley
...does not apply." " ‘ Key v. Robert M. Duke Ins. Agency, 340 So.2d 781, 783 (Ala. 1976) (emphasis added); see alsoSeybold v. Magnolia Land Co., 372 So.2d 865, 866 (Ala. 1979) (dismissing appeal from order relating to single plaintiff, where three other plaintiffs' claims remained pending, re......