White v. Whatley
Decision Date | 20 December 1900 |
Citation | 128 Ala. 524,30 So. 738 |
Parties | WHITE ET AL. v. WHATLEY. [1] |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clay county court; W. J. Pearce, Judge.
Action by White & Spigener against M. W. Whatley. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
This action was instituted to recover the statutory penalty against the probate judge of Clay county for charging excessive fees for the record of certain mortgages. The judgment entry in the court below, so far as necessary to an understanding of the opinion, is as follows Then follows judgment for defendant.
W. M Lackey and D. H. Riddle, for appellants.
Knox Bowie & Dixon, for appellee.
It has several times been decided by this court, in effect, that action of the trial court in sustaining or overruling a demurrer to pleading can be made to appear, so as to be assignable for error, only by an entry of record sufficiently formal to constitute a judgment upon the particular issue joined on the demurrer, and that a mere recital in the minutes that the demurrer was sustained or overruled is insufficient for that purpose. Crawford v. Crawford, 119 Ala. 34, 24 So. 727; Mercantile Co. v. O'Rear, 112 Ala. 248, 20 So. 583; McDonald v. Railway Co. (Ala.) 26 So. 165; Improvement Co. v. Dubose (Ala.) 28 So. 380; Carter v. Long (Ala.) 28 So. 74. Tested by the rule as declared in the authorities referred to, the recitals in this record respecting demurrers to pleas and replications do not show a disposition of those demurrers, and consequently do not support the assignments of error based on the assumed disposition of those demurrers.
The judgment purports to have been rendered against the plaintiff in consequence of his refusal to further plead. The propriety of that action depends upon whether in the then existing state of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skelton v. Weaver
...[228 Ala. 559, 561, 154 So. 804], as follows: 'In L[ouisville] & N. R. Co. v. Walker, 128 Ala. 368, 30 So. 738, and in White v. Whatley, 128 Ala. 524, 30 So. 738 (cited by appellant), plaintiff was held by the trial court to be in default for a refusal to plead further when he had on file r......
-
Lokey v. Ward
... ... Am. v ... Caldwell, 85 Ala. 607, 5 So. 338 ... In ... L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Walker, 128 Ala. 368, 30 So ... 738, and in White v. Whatley, 128 Ala. 524, 30 So ... 738 (cited by appellant), plaintiff was held by the trial ... court to be in default for a refusal to plead ... ...
-
Wilkinson v. Cohen, 6 Div. 262
...defendant was not insisting upon a decision by the court on the demurrer. Lokey v. Ward, 228 Ala. 559, 154 So. 802; White & Spigener v. Whatley, 128 Ala. 524, 30 So. 738. Furthermore the filing of the demurrer was a compliance with the order of the court to plead further. A demurrer is gene......