Opinion
6 Div. 215.
March 22, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.
Garnishment suit by Vannah Riddlesperger, plaintiff in judgment against A. S. Preston, against the Jasper Land Company, garnishee. From a judgment for plaintiff, the garnishee appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
The minute entry is as follows:
"Sept. 7, 1931. Come the parties by their attorneys. It appearing to the court that the plaintiff having filed a contest of the garnishee's answer, and that a proper notice of said contest of garnishee's answer having been served upon the defendant as provided in the statute, the court proceeds to make up the issues,
"Comes the plaintiff and alleges that the answer of the garnishee is untrue in the following respects: (1) that the garnishee was indebted to the defendant at the time of the service of the garnishment; (2) That at the time of the service of the writ of garnishment there was an existing contract between garnishee and defendant whereby garnishee would in the future become indebted to the defendant. The garnishee joins issue on said allegations.
"Sept. 9, 1931. After hearing and considering the evidence it is therefore the order and judgment of the court that the garnishee is indebted to the defendant and it is the further order and judgment of the court that the plaintiff have and recover of the garnishee the amount of plaintiff's judgment against the defendant, together with 8% interest from Sept. 22, 1928, the date when said judgment was rendered, and it is the further order and judgment of the court that the plaintiff have and recover of the garnishee the costs of the original suit and also of this proceeding, for which let execution issue."
Coleman D. Shepherd, of Jasper, for appellant.
L. D. Gray and J. B. Powell, both of Jasper, for appellee.
In view of the decision, it is not necessary that briefs be here set out.
"A judgment should be complete and certain in itself." Sugar Valley Land Co. et al. v. Johnson, 17 Ala. App. 409, 85 So. 871, 874, and authorities cited in the opinion in that case.
The judgment rendered in this case violates the above rule, and, for that reason, must be reversed.
As the case must be retried, and the evidence may be supplemented, we deem it profitless to undertake to decide whether or not, upon the evidence in the bill of exceptions, judgment in favor of appellee was warranted.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.