White v. Simpson

• Decision Date: 09 January 1900
• Citation: 27 So. 297,124 Ala. 238
• Parties: WHITE v. SIMPSON ET AL. [1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

27 So. 297

124 Ala. 238

WHITE v. SIMPSON ET AL. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 9, 1900

Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.

Suit by E. F. White against J. L. Simpson and others. From a decree for defendants on a cross bill, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Blackwell & Keith and Geo. D. Motley, for appellant.

D. D McLeod, R. B. Kelly, and Whitson & Graham, for appellees.

DOWDELL J.

The purpose of the bill in this case is the enforcement of the vendor's lien against the land described in said bill. The substantial facts set forth in the bill may be stated as follows: L. V. White and E. S. White, his wife, in March 1890, sold to defendant J. L. Simpson a house and lot in the city of Anniston, Ala., for which he paid $500 in cash, and gave his two notes, for $1,000 each, for the balance, payable in one and two years after date. On the 11th of October 1890, complainant, E. F. White, who held two waive notes made by said L. V. and E. S. White, aggregating $572, sued out an attachment in the city court of Anniston on said notes; and on the 16th day of October, 1890, said attachment was levied by summoning J. L. Simpson as garnishee. On the 11th day of November, 1890, said Simpson filed his answer as garnishee denying his indebtedness to E. S. White, but admitting sufficient indebtedness to L. V. White on account of the notes aforesaid to cover the claim of E. F. White. On the 6th day of June, 1892, judgment was entered in favor of said E F. White against said L. V. and E. S. White for $707.77, and an additional sum of $20.25, costs of suit; and on the same day judgment was rendered for said amounts in favor of said E. F. White against said Simpson, as such garnishee. Execution was issued on this judgment on the 16th day of June, 1892, against Simpson, and returned on September 29, 1892, "No property found." L. V. White, E. S. White, and J. L. Simpson were made respondents to complainant's bill. Each of said defendants filed answers and cross bills in which they severally set up that the judgment rendered in said attachment suit against said L. V. and E. S. White was null and void, because no notice of said attachment had been served on said parties as required by section 2937 of the Code of 1886. Upon the submission of the cause, on the motion and demurrers of complainant the cross bills of L. V. and E. S. White were dismissed for want of equity, and from this decree no appeal was ever prosecuted. Upon the hearing on J. L. Simpson's cross bill, the court held that, at the time of the suing out of the attachment of E. F. White against L. V. and E. S. White, said defendants were residents, and entitled to notice, under section 2937 of the Code of 1886, and that, not having received such notice, said judgment so rendered against them was null and void, and, in consequence, that the judgment against said Simpson was likewise null and void. From this decree complainant in the bill prosecutes the appeal.

It will be observed from the foregoing statement that the only question involved is whether the judgment against Simpson rendered in the attachment suit is void. and this depends upon the validity of the judgment against the defendants L V. and E. S. White in said suit. The court in which said judgments in attachment were rendered is a court of general jurisdiction, and the attack which is now made on said judgments is collateral. The following propositions of law are too well settled to require citation of authority, and, indeed, may be said to have become elementary: When the judgment of a court of general jurisdiction is drawn in question upon...