Ex Parte John F. Byers Mach. Co.

11 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte State

    19 Ala. App. 400 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)   Cited 2 times

    Thompson Thompson, of Birmingham, for petitioner. The court was without jurisdiction to entertain or set aside the judgment by default, without an affidavit of merit having been filed and accompanying the motion to set aside said judgment by default, and the action of the court in assuming jurisdiction in the instant case is absolutely void. Ex parte Payne, 130 Ala. 189, 29 So. 622; Ex parte John F. Byers Mch. Co., 18 Ala. App. 78, 89 So. 88; Ex parte Doak, 188 Ala. 406, 66 So. 64. The remedy of the aggrieved party under circumstances outlined is by mandamus. Coleman, Coleman, Spain Stewart, of Birmingham, for respondent.

  2. Shepherd v. Clements

    25 Ala. App. 7 (Ala. Crim. App. 1932)   Cited 12 times

    Williford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 216 Ala. 309, 113 So. 44; Douglass v. Orman, 218 Ala. 563, 119 So. 605. Under the local act for Jefferson county, the correctness of the conclusions and judgments of the circuit court on the evidence cannot be reviewed where no exception to the judgment is taken. Acts 1888-89, p. 800, ยง 7; Hill v. Condon, 14 Ala. App. 332, 70 So. 208; Greek-Amer. Prod. Co. v. L. N. R. Co., 1 Ala. App. 272, 55 So. 455; Hood v. Pioneer M. M. Co., 95 Ala. 461, 11 So. 10. The Code neither repeals nor amends the Practice Act relating to Jefferson county. Ex parte State ex rel. Harle Hass Co., 19 Ala. App. 400, 97 So. 680; Ex parte Doak, 188 Ala. 406, 66 So. 64; Ex parte Byers Mach. Co., 18 Ala. App. 78, 89 So. 88; Ex parte Payne, 130 Ala. 189, 29 So. 622. If one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third party, such beneficiary may maintain an action upon the promise though the consideration does not move from the latter. Clark Co. v. Nelson, 216 Ala. 199, 112 So. 819, 53 A.L.R. 173; Fite v. Pearson, 215 Ala. 521, 111 So. 15; Liles v. Cox, 215 Ala. 237, 110 So. 716; Farrell v. Anderson Co., 211 Ala. 238, 100 So. 205; Alabama City G. A. R. Co. v. Kyle, 204 Ala. 597, 87 So. 191; Alabama Power Co. v. Hamilton, 201 Ala. 62, 77 So. 356; Pugh, Stone Co. v. Barnes, 108 Ala. 170, 19 So. 370; Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Boykin, 137 Ala. 350, 34 So. 1012; Moore v. First Nat. Bank, 139 Ala. 595, 36 So. 777; Potts v. First Nat. Bank, 102 Ala. 286, 14 So. 665; North Alabama Dev. Co. v. Short, 101 Ala. 333, 13 So. 385; Young v. Hawkins, 74 Ala. 373; Carver v. Eads, 65 Ala. 190; Henry v. Murphy, 54 Ala. 246; Huckabee v. May, 14 Ala. 263. An agreement by appellants to pay plaintiff, who wa

  3. Ex Parte Anderson

    242 Ala. 31 (Ala. 1941)   Cited 11 times

    207 Ala. 611, 93 So. 569; 34 C.J. 177; Lenoir v. Broadhead's Adm'r, 50 Ala. 58; Providence Tool Co. v. Prader, 32 Cal. 634, 91 Am.Dec. 598; Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Capital Ins. Co., 111 Iowa 590, 82 N.W. 1023, 82 Am.St.Rep. 529. When the court possesses no discretion to set aside a default judgment and simply disobeys the commands of the law, and a party is thereby deprived of a legal right and there is no remedy by appeal, mandamus will lie to control the action of the lower court. Ex parte Haisten, 227 Ala. 183, 149 So. 213. Motion to set aside a judgment by default must show defendant has a meritorious defense and sufficient matter of excuse for not interposing an appropriate pleading within time allowed by law; and showing as to merits and excuse must be sworn to. Circuit Court Rule 11, Code 1923, p. 899; Code 1940, Tit. 7, p. 1026; Ex parte United States Shipping Board E. F. Corp., 215 Ala. 321, 110 So. 469; Ex parte Payne, 130 Ala. 189, 29 So. 622; 34 C.J. 329, 335, 339, 427; Ex parte Byers Mach. Co., 18 Ala. App. 78, 89 So. 88; Ingram v. Alabama Power Co., 201 Ala. 13, 75 So. 304; Smothers v. Meridian Fertilizer Factory, 137 Ala. 166, 33 So. 898; Ex parte Robertson, 20 Ala. App. 514, 104 So. 561. A judgment by default may be entered where pleading filed by defendant is a mere nullity. Such may be disregarded.

  4. Lokey v. Ward

    154 So. 802 (Ala. 1934)   Cited 16 times

    8 So. 512; Hambrick v. Dent, 70 Miss. 59, 11 So. 608. A judgment nil dicit is substantially the same as one by default. Ex parte Parker, 172 Ala. 136, 54 So. 572; Ex parte Byers Mach. Co., 18 Ala. App. 78, 89 So. 88; Id., 206 Ala. 65, 89 So. 89. Claimant was entitled to have the credibility of plaintiff's evidence passed upon. Clements v. Mayfield Mills, supra. Plaintiff having demanded a jury trial on her complaint, and claimant having demanded it on his claim, neither party could thereafter waive a jury without consent of the other. Code, ยงยง 8597, 9498; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Laslie, 17 Ala. App. 303, 84 So. 864; Ayers v. Barbour, 19 Ala. App. 470, 98 So. 34; Ewart-Brewer Motor Co. v. Cunningham, 213 Ala. 391, 104 So. 789; Ex parte Florida Nursery Trading Co., 201 Ala. 97, 77 So. 391.

  5. City of Birmingham v. Goolsby

    227 Ala. 421 (Ala. 1933)   Cited 23 times

    The trial court could not entertain a motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial unless defendant complied with the statute and accompanied his motion with an affidavit that defendant had a lawful defense to the suit. Local Acts 1888-89, 797, ยงยง 1, 11; Ex parte Payne, 130 Ala. 189, 29 So. 622; Ex parte Doak, 188 Ala. 406, 66 So. 64; Ex parte Byers Mach. Co., 18 Ala. App. 78, 89 So. 88. Mandamus, and not statutory right of appeal, is proper remedy where the trial court has abused its discretion in refusing to set aside default judgment. Ex parte Gay, 213 Ala. 5, 104 So. 898; Brazel v. New South Coal Co., 131 Ala. 418, 30 So. 832; Ex parte Parker, 172 Ala. 136, 54 So. 572; Ex parte Tower Mfg. Co., 103 Ala. 415, 15 So. 836. After judgment by default, the only question to be inquired into is as to the amount of damages.

  6. Shepherd v. Clements

    224 Ala. 1 (Ala. 1931)   Cited 34 times
    Recognizing presumption that general law does not impliedly repeal local statute

    Acts 1888-89, p. 800, ยง 7; Hood v. Pioneer M. M. Co., 95 Ala. 461, 11 So. 10; Williams v. Woodwood Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254, 17 So. 517; Denson v. Gray, 113 Ala. 608, 21 So. 925; Hoge v. Herzberg, 141 Ala. 439, 37 So. 591; Morey v. Monk, 142 Ala. 175, 38 So. 265; Hill v. Condon, 14 Ala. App. 332, 70 So. 208; Greek Amer. P. Co. v. Louisville N. R. Co., 1 Ala. App. 272, 55 So. 455. The Code does not amend the Jefferson County Practice Act. Ex parte State ex rel. Harle, Haas Co., 19 Ala. App. 400, 97 So. 680; Ex parte Doak, 188 Ala. 406, 66 So. 64; Ex parte Byers Mach. Co., 18 Ala. App. 78, 89 So. 88; Ex parte Payne, 130 Ala. 189, 29 So. 622. Under the appeal in the case, from the judgment on the merits, ruling on the motion for new trial is not reviewable.

  7. Blankenship v. Hail

    106 So. 594 (Ala. 1925)   Cited 7 times

    Vassar L. Allen, of Birmingham, opposed. The cause is still pending in the trial court; the order complained of was interlocutory, and not final, and the respondent retained control over it. 19 R. C. L. 676; Ex parte Davis, 209 Ala. 126, 95 So. 363; Ex parte Byers Mach. Co., 18 Ala. App. 78, 89 So. 88; Ex parte Overton, 174 Ala. 256, 57 So. 434; Code 1923, ยง 8576 (6). ANDERSON, C. J.

  8. Brown v. Brown

    213 Ala. 339 (Ala. 1925)   Cited 26 times

    Dortch, Allen Dortch, of Gadsden, for appellee. No appeal lies from an order overruling motion to set aside a default judgment, and such action by the trial court will not be reviewed in any proceeding, unless for abuse of discretion. Wilkins v. Windham, 197 Ala. 510, 73 So. 29; Ex parte John F. Byers Mach. Co., 18 Ala. App. 78, 89 So. 88; Ex parte Doak, 188 Ala. 406, 66 So. 64; Eminent Household v. Lockerd, 202 Ala. 330, 80 So. 412; Kirkland v. C. D. Franke Co., 207 Ala. 377, 92 So. 472. Negligence of defendant's attorney is the negligence of defendant.

  9. Zavelo v. Starr Piano Co.

    92 So. 253 (Ala. 1922)   Cited 1 times

    The court exercised a proper discretion in granting the new trial. 18 Ala. App. 78, 89 So. 88. McCLELLAN, J.

  10. Ex Parte John F. Byers Mach. Co.

    89 So. 89 (Ala. 1921)

    GARDNER, J. Petition of John F. Byers Machine Company for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court, rendered in the case of Ex parte John F. Byers Machine Company, 89 So. 88. Writ denied.