From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Drinkard v. Premier Refining Co.

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Apr 5, 1921
90 So. 54 (Ala. Crim. App. 1921)

Opinion

8 Div. 724.

April 5, 1921.

Appeal from Morgan County Court; W.T. Lowe, Judge.

Assumpsit by the Premier Refining Company against T.E. Drinkard. There was judgment by default, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

E.W. Godbey, of Decatur, for appellant.

The court erred in rendering judgment with proof of the debt. 25 Ala. 451; 128 Ala. 332, 29 So. 10; 38 Ala. 344; 67 Ala. 252; 76 Ala. 373; 163 Ala. 594, 50 So. 1034; 156 Ala. 573, 47 So. 307.

Wert Hudson, of Decatur, for appellee.

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.


The complaint was in two counts, claiming for goods sold and delivered and on open count. Neither count was an instrument in writing or verified account ascertaining the plaintiff's demands. Code 3970 and 3971, §§ 5356, 5325. And the judgment being by default, without the intervention of a jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Rhea v. Holston Salt P. Co., 59 Ala. 182; Parsons Lbr. Co. v. West Co. et al., 163 Ala. 594, 50 So. 1034.

There are other questions in the record, but we think a decision of them is unnecessary.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Drinkard v. Premier Refining Co.

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Apr 5, 1921
90 So. 54 (Ala. Crim. App. 1921)
Case details for

Drinkard v. Premier Refining Co.

Case Details

Full title:DRINKARD v. PREMIER REFINING CO

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Apr 5, 1921

Citations

90 So. 54 (Ala. Crim. App. 1921)
18 Ala. App. 109

Citing Cases

Garnett v. Scott

thereof, it was erroneous to disregard that plea and enter a judgment final for damages (by default) without…

Frazier v. Dismuke

The judgment entry fails to show affirmatively the existence of the conditions specified in section 7667,…