Shepherd v. Clements
| Decision Date | 25 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 960. |
| Citation | 141 So. 255,224 Ala. 1 |
| Parties | SHEPHERD ET AL. v. CLEMENTS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Petition for certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of Everett Shepherd and A. Page Sloss, individually and as partners under the firm name of Shepherd & Sloss Realty Company, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Shepherd et al. v. Clements, 141 So. 250.
Writ awarded; reversed and remanded.
See also, Shepherd et al. v. Clements (Ala. Sup.) 141 So. 256.
Coleman Coleman, Spain & Stewart, of Birmingham, for petitioners.
R. Du Pont Thompson and Walter S. Smith, both of Birmingham opposed.
This cause was tried in the circuit court of Jefferson county before the court without a jury. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (141 So. 250) entertained the opinion that a review of the ruling of the trial court on the facts was precluded for the reason, first, that there was no exception reserved on the original judgment rendered, and second, that the ruling on the motion for new trial was not subject to review, for the reason that the appeal was from the original judgment and not from the order denying said motion. We find ourselves not in accord as to either of these conclusions.
As to the necessity for the reservation of an exception to the finding on the original judgment, the Court of Appeals rests their conclusion upon the provisions of section 7 of the Jefferson County Practice Act as found in Acts 1888-89, p 797, 800. This section does not specifically require that an exception be reserved, though it may be conceded the ruling of the court thereon was that such reservation of exception was necessary. Hood v. Pioneer M. & M. Co., 95 Ala. 461, 11 So. 10. We think, however, that the ruling of the Court of Appeals overlooks the general scheme of revision as to the circuit courts of the state evidenced by the several legislative acts of the session of 1915. A review of them here in detail is unnecessary, but those of major importance may be found on pages 279, 598, 608, 135, 741, 707, 939, 941, 817, 809, 876 and 824, General Acts 1915.
These several acts provided for the abolition of the chancery courts and the city courts, and their consolidation into the circuit court with equity jurisdiction; for the manner of the call of the docket; election of the judges and solicitors, with particular reference by population qualification to Jefferson county; the regulation of trials in the court and demand for jury; the finality of the judgment at the expiration of thirty days; for additional salaries to the judges in certain counties, including Jefferson county, and in the act found on page 824 for a review of the finding of the court without a jury, with the concluding sentence: "The finding of the court on the evidence shall be subject to review without an exception thereto," which sentence, we may add, is the only distinguishing feature from the local act. This particular act now constitutes section 9502, Code 1923. All of these acts were passed at the same session and practically simultaneously. They were a part of the general legislative scheme looking to consolidation of the courts and uniformity of procedure therein.
We recognize the rule that the presumption is a general act does not repeal a local statute, but, as has been well said, "such presumption must give way to a plain manifestation of a different legislative intent." The question is one of intention which may be made to appear by the subject-matter with which the general act is concerned, by the surrounding circumstances, by other legislation on the same subject, and the purpose to be accomplished. Thus, where the clear general intent of the Legislature is to establish a uniform system throughout the state, the presumption must be that local acts are intended to be repealed. 36 Cyc. 1089, 1090.
As applicable to the present question, another rule of construction should not be ignored, and that is that statutes should have a rational, sensible construction, if their meaning is at all doubtful. 25 R. C. L. p. 1018.
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayden v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama
...insurance laws. In support of their argument, Plaintiffs cite Day v. Morgan County Comm'n, 487 So.2d 856 (Ala.1986) and Shepherd v. Clements, 141 So. 255 (Ala.1931). Plaintiffs, however, misread these In Day, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a 1979 act did not repeal by implication a 194......
-
Hamrick v. Town of Albertville, 8 Div. 404.
... ... 511, ... 116 So. 681; Thomas v. Carter, 218 Ala. 55, 117 So ... 634; Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 218 Ala. 468, ... 118 So. 794; Shepherd v. Clements, 224 Ala. 1, 141 ... So. 255; Formby v. Whitaker, 225 Ala. 154, 142 So ... 536; St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Kimbrell, 226 ... ...
-
Ellte Laundry Co v. Dunn
...ex rel. Knecht v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co, 300 Ill. 218, 133 N.E. 308; Eastham v. Steinhagen, 111 Tex. 597, 243 S.W. 457; Shepherd v. Clements, 224 Ala. 1, 141 So. 255; American National Bank v. Bauman, 173 La. 336, 137 So. 54. In the present instance there can be no question of the absolute ......
-
Dixie Coaches, Inc. v. Ramsden
...Homes v. Cloverdale, 182 Ala. 419, 62 So. 712, 47 L.R.A.,N.S., 607; Watson v. Clayton, 230 Ala. 59, 159 So. 481; Shepherd v. Clements, 224 Ala. 1, 141 So. 255; 224 Ala. 3, 141 So. 256; Storrs v. Heck, Comptroller, Ala.Sup., 90 So. 78; and many authorities cited; Paterson v. Wisener, 218 Ala......