Webb v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 21 January 1904
• Parties: WEBB ET AL. v. REYNOLDS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

36 So. 15

139 Ala. 398

WEBB ET AL. v. REYNOLDS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 21, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coosa County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

Action by J. J. Reynolds against W. M. Webb and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Corrected and affirmed.

The judgment entry is as follows: "This day come the parties in this case in person and by attorney, and, issue being joined on the plea of not guilty, thereupon comes a jury," etc. After reciting the verdict of the jury (which is copied in the opinion), the judgment entry then proceeds as follows: "It is therefore considered by the court that the plaintiff, J. J. Reynolds, have and recover of the defendants W. M. Webb and Mrs. W. M. Webb the lands described in the complaint, to wit [there then follows a description of the lands which is identical with the description contained in the complaint]. It is further considered by the court that the plaintiff, J. J. Reynolds have and recover of the defendants W. M. Webb and Mrs. W. M Webb thirty dollars, besides the costs of this suit, for which execution may issue," etc. The other facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Joel F Webb, for appellants.

W. M Lackey and D. H. Riddle, for appellee.

TYSON J.

At the last term of this court the paper in the record purporting to be a bill of exceptions, on motion was stricken, and a motion to establish it as a bill of exceptions was denied. Those assignments of error predicated upon exceptions taken upon the trial must therefore be disregarded. There are other assignments which question the regularity of the judgment appealed from. As to these, the appellants are entitled to have them reviewed. The action is the statutory one of ejectment against W. M. Webb, Mrs. W. M. Webb, and J. A McElrath. The Webbs interposed joint pleas of not guilty and of the statute of limitations. McElrath filed a plea disclaiming possession of the land at the time of its filing and at the commencement of the suit. The judgment entry shows that issue was joined only on the plea of not guilty. It is silent as to the disposition made of the plea of the statute of limitations, or of the plea of disclaimer interposed by McElrath. It is, however, of no moment as to what became of the plea of the statute of limitations, since that matter of defense was properly within the issue upon which the cause was tried. McClendon v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 122 Ala. 390, 25 So. 30, and cases there cited. Responding to the issue presented for their consideration, the jury rendered a verdict in this language: "We, the jury, find the issue for plaintiff for the land sued for against W. M. Webb and Mrs. W. M. Webb, and assess the damages for rent at thirty dollars." It is objected that the verdict is defective in two respects: First, in that it does not describe the land; and, second, in the use of the words "for rent." There is clearly no merit in either of these objections. The description of the land sued for is...