Williams v. Continental Oil Co.

Decision Date20 June 1980
PartiesJoe C. WILLIAMS v. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY. 79-38.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

William H. Saliba, Mobile, for appellant.

J. Edward Thornton, Mobile, for appellee.

EMBRY, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order entered 31 August 1979 purporting to dismiss plaintiff's case and the counterclaim of defendant. The question presented is whether this appeal should be dismissed because the judgment appealed from is void and therefore not appealable.

This case has been here before on petition for writ of mandamus. Continental Oil Co. v. Williams, 370 So.2d 953 (Ala.1979).

The relevant facts of this case are stated chronologically:

(1) On 7 April 1978, plaintiff, Continental Oil Company, filed a motion to compel defendant, Joe C. Williams, to more fully answer interrogatories within 30 days.

(2) On 10 May 1978, plaintiff filed its motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim for his failure to more fully answer its interrogatories.

(3) On 16 May 1978, plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim was denied.

(4) On 17 May 1978, the order of 16 May 1978 was set aside, the motion to dismiss the counterclaim granted, and the counterclaim dismissed.

(5) On 19 May 1978, plaintiff moved to dismiss its action with prejudice and at the cost of plaintiff. This motion is the key to a determination of this appeal.

(6) On 23 May 1978, defendant asked the trial court to amend its order so as to allow defendant-counterclaimant to proceed with his case.

(7) On 2 June 1978, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the suit with prejudice and thereupon dismissed the action.

(8) On the same day, but physically appearing subsequent to the previous 2 June 1978 order, the trial court granted a motion to set aside the order of 17 May 1978 dismissing the counterclaim and noted: "counter-claim pending." Thus it appears that when the trial court attempted to reinstate the counterclaim there was no pending action to which it could attach or in which it could be reinstated.

The order of 2 June 1978, granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss, and dismissing the cause with prejudice was never set aside; therefore, it remains in full force and effect and any subsequent orders or actions of the trial court in this action are nullities.

The entire cause could not have been dismissed on plaintiff's voluntary motion if defendant's counterclaim had been pending. See Rule 41(a)(2), ARCP. However, the counterclaim was dismissed for failure to answer interrogatories before plaintiff made its motion to dismiss the suit with prejudice. Therefore, no counterclaim was pending when plaintiff made its motion to dismiss its action....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Smalls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2160756
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • November 9, 2017
    ...no adverse ruling against the [appellant], there is no justiciable controversy for this court to decide." ’ Williams v. Continental Oil Co., 387 So.2d 130, 131 (Ala. 1980) (quoting Mobile Fuel Shipping, 375 So.2d at 797 )." State v. Nguyen, 38 So.3d 72, 74–75 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). To the e......
  • Hillwood Office Ctr. Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Blevins
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 2, 2018
    ...Therefore, the HOCOA and its board members have not suffered an adverse ruling from which they could appeal. See Williams v. Continental Oil Co., 387 So.2d 130, 131 (Ala. 1980) (stating that "[d]efendant cannot appeal from dismissal of plaintiff's case"). Accordingly, the appeal in case no.......
  • Eberhart v. Kurtz
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • July 23, 1986
    ...the entry of the jury verdict was barred by this previous adjudication. Kurtz argues that the supreme court held in Williams v. Continental Oil Co., 387 So.2d 130 (Ala.1980), that when a cause was dismissed with prejudice a later action by the court to reinstate the claim was ineffective. H......
  • State of Ala. v. NGUYEN, 2080820.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • November 20, 2009
    ...being no adverse ruling against the [appellant], there is no justiciable controversy for this court to decide.’ ” Williams v. Continental Oil Co., 387 So.2d 130, 131 (Ala.1980) (quoting Mobile Fuel Shipping, 375 So.2d at 797). In this case, the State moved for a dismissal and received a dis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT