Webb v. Litz
Decision Date | 20 May 1958 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 14 |
Citation | 102 So.2d 915,39 Ala.App. 443 |
Parties | Hugh WEBB, d/b/a Webb Insurance Company v. Boyd E. LITZ. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Thos. W. Sullivan, Montgomery, for appellant.
Ballard, Ballard & Akers, Montgomery, for appellee.
This is a civil action at law based upon Webb's complaint reading as follows:
'The Plaintiff claims of the Defendant the sum of Four-hundred and Eighty-nine and 75/100 ($489.75) Dollars, for that on to-wit: August 9, 1955, the Defendant did purchase from the Plaintiff one 1954 Volks Wagon automobile, Motor No. 10801-853, and did enter into a conditional sales contract for the payment of said automobile, payable at the rate of Seventy-Five and 00/100 (75.00) Dollars per month; that thereafter the Defendant did default in said payments and it became necessary for Plaintiff to repossess said automobile and that as a result of Defendant's breach the Plaintiff was forced to sell said automobile upon the open market to his loss as aforesaid.
'Plaintiff further avers that one of the conditions in said conditional sales contract is that the Defendant shall pay a reasonable Attorney's fee should it become necessary to employ an attorney, and Plaintiff claims an additional One-hundred and twenty-two and 43/100 ($122.43) Dollars as attorney's fees.
Count II
'Plaintiff claims of the Defendant the sum of Six-hundred and Twelve and 18/100 ($612.18) Dollars due from him on account on the 5th day of December, 1955; which sum of money with interest thereon, is still due and unpaid.'
To this complaint as a whole, Litz demurred and separately and severally to each count thereof. We treat the demurrer as being sufficient to point out the defect in Count 1 which we shall discuss later. On November 2, 1956, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County entered an order sustaining the demurrer in toto, whereupon the plaintiff declined to plead further and moved for a nonsuit. A judgment of dismissal was entered against him with leave to appeal to this court.
One of the complainant's assignments of error is that Count 2 of the complaint is in statutory form as prescribed by Code 1940, T. 7, § 223, No. 10, and, therefore, not subject to objection by way of demurrer.
At common law, pleading commenced with the execution of a writ after which the plaintiff was given a certain time, usually three days after the commencement of the term at which the writ was returnable, to file his declaration. Cf. Toulmin's Digest, T. 36, Ch. I, p. 453, § 31, Ch. XXIV, p. 476, § 7; Aiken's Digest, p. 276, § 104.
This seems to have been the system that prevailed in Alabama up until 1852 when the Legislature undertook, by the Code of that year, to alter much of the manner and form of pleading and practice at law, so that in § 2160 of the 1852 Code we find that an action at law is commenced by the service of a summons, to which a copy of a 'complaint' was required to be attached. This in lieu of the common law 'declaration.' With the 1940 Code the 'filing' of the originating summons with a complaint attached rather than 'service' became the point of beginning of an action.
The use of the so-called common counts as an addition to counts based on assumpsit is familiar to all practitioners. Stephen, whose first and second editions of the Principles of Pleading were published before any of the English pleading reforms of 1833-34 and accordingly are our best Encyclopedic text of what was the English common law on July 4, 1776, says (in 2nd Ed.--Tyler, American Editor) at pp. 258-261:
* * *
* * *
* * *
A complaint under our present law, as might the common law declaration before it, may contain one or more counts arising out of the same transaction, provided the defendant be not 'twice charged for the same thing.' Chitty on Pleading (16th Am.Ed.) p. 429; West v. Toles, Salk. 213, so that we find:
* * *'Mardis' Adm'rs v. Shackleford, 6 Ala. 433.
'If, however, there is not an express reference, the several counts are considered as distinct as if contained in separate declarations. * * *.' Robinson v. Drummond, 24 Ala. 174.
'* * * Under our system of pleading the several counts of the complaint are considered separate and distinct, and to be tested for their sufficiency by the averments thereof without reference to any other count, * * *.' Paterson & Edey Lumber Co. v. Carolina-Portland Cement Co., 215 Ala. 621, 112 So. 245, 250.
Code 1940, T. 7, § 219, reads:
'All actions on contracts, express or implied, for the payment of money, whether under seal or not, though some may contain a waiver of the right of exemption and others not, may be united in the same action, and the issues may be determined separately by the jury under the direction of the court, and the costs fairly apportioned.'
The practice under this section was well elucidated by this court in Abraham Bros. v. Means, 16 Ala.App. 429, 78 So. 459, 460, wherein the opinion reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tonsmeire v. Tonsmeire
...is good, the demurrer should be overruled, save for misjoinder. Polytinsky v. Lindsey, 21 Ala.App. 128, 106 So. 70; Webb v. Litz, 39 Ala.App. 443, 102 So.2d 915. The following two code sections in Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, are to be considered in our present '910. In an action for libe......
-
Phifer v. City of Birmingham
...urged the demurrer should be overruled as to the entire complaint. Howison v. Oakley, et al., 118 Ala. 215, 23 So. 810; Webb v. Litz, 39 Ala.App. 443, 102 So.2d 915. Furthermore, the assignment of error as to the ruling on demurrer 'The court erred in denying and overruling the defendant's ......
-
Crawford v. Holmes & Waddell, Inc.
...239; Sims v. Alabama Water Company, 205 Ala. 378, 87 So. 688, 28 A.L.R. 461; Yates v. Barnett, 215 Ala. 554, 112 So. 122; Webb v. Litz, 39 Ala.App. 443, 102 So.2d 915. The next few assignments amount to no more than grounds of demurrer, which, we might note, are not well taken. The assignme......
-
Jones v. Frye & Anders Equipment Co.
...however, calls for a deficiency in the event of a foreclosure. See Bern v. Rosen, 259 Ala. 292, 66 So.2d 711, and Webb v. Litz, 39 Ala.App. 443, 102 So.2d 915. In the absence of a written bill of sale, we are unwilling to consider this instrument alone as setting up a conditional sale or re......