Chilton County v. Grooms

Supreme Court of Alabama

Chilton County v. Grooms

98 So. 469, 210 Ala. 501, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 75

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 20, 1923

Docket5 Div. 879.

StatusPublished

This text of 98 So. 469 (Chilton County v. Grooms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chilton County v. Grooms, 98 So. 469, 210 Ala. 501, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 75 (Ala. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

Appellee recovered a judgment against appellants in a tort action, the sum total of which did not exceed $20. The judgment of the trial court taxed the entire costs against the defendants, and for a review thereof this appeal is prosecuted. This action of the trial court was violative of the provisions of section 3663 of the Code of 1907, which reads as follows:

“In all actions to recover damages for torts, the plaintiff recovers no more costs than damages, where such damages do not exceed $20, unless the presiding judge certifies that greater damages should have been awarded; and on failure to certify, judgment must be rendered against the plaintiff for such residue.”

[1] There was no certificate of the presiding judge that greater damages should have been awarded, and, indeed, as the cause was tried before the court without a jury, no occasion arose for such a certificate, the judgment itself disclosing the maximum amount that should be awarded in the opinion of the trial judge. The following authorities are conclusive to a reversal of the cause, and the rendition of a proper judgment here: Rarden v. Maddox, 141 Ala. 506, 39 South. 95; Guttery v. Boshell, 132 Ala. 596, 32 South. 304; Danforth v. McClellan, 196 Ala. 567, 72 South. 104; Holloway v. Henderson Lbr. Co., 203 Ala. 246, 82 South. 344.

T2] Counsel for appellee insists the above section of the Code has no application to a cause tried before the court without a jury, but we find no such exception in the language of the statute. We are of the opinion in such a case the proviso in the statute as to the certificate of the presiding judge has no field for operation, but that the statute means what it plainly says as to recovery of costs in tort actions.

The judgment will be reversed and one here rendered limiting the recovery of plaintiff to the damages awarded of $20, and costs not exceeding such sum, and taxing the plaintiff with the residue of the costs. Let appellee be taxed with the cost of this appeal.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GARDNER, J.

Appellee recovered a judgment against appellants in a tort action, the sum total of which did not exceed $20. The judgment of the trial court taxed the entire costs against the defendants, and for a review thereof this appeal is prosecuted. This action of the trial court was violative of the provisions of section 3663 of the Code of 1907, which reads as follows:

“In all actions to recover damages for torts, the plaintiff recovers no more costs than damages, where such damages do not exceed $20, unless the presiding judge certifies that greater damages should have been awarded; and on failure to certify, judgment must be rendered against the plaintiff for such residue.”

[1] There was no certificate of the presiding judge that greater damages should have been awarded, and, indeed, as the cause was tried before the court without a jury, no occasion arose for such a certificate, the judgment itself disclosing the maximum amount that should be awarded in the opinion of the trial judge. The following authorities are conclusive to a reversal of the cause, and the rendition of a proper judgment here: Rarden v. Maddox, 141 Ala. 506, 39 South. 95; Guttery v. Boshell, 132 Ala. 596, 32 South. 304; Danforth v. McClellan, 196 Ala. 567, 72 South. 104; Holloway v. Henderson Lbr. Co., 203 Ala. 246, 82 South. 344.

T2] Counsel for appellee insists the above section of the Code has no application to a cause tried before the court without a jury, but we find no such exception in the language of the statute. We are of the opinion in such a case the proviso in the statute as to the certificate of the presiding judge has no field for operation, but that the statute means what it plainly says as to recovery of costs in tort actions.

The judgment will be reversed and one here rendered limiting the recovery of plaintiff to the damages awarded of $20, and costs not exceeding such sum, and taxing the plaintiff with the residue of the costs. Let appellee be taxed with the cost of this appeal.

Reversed and rendered.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 So. 469, 210 Ala. 501, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chilton-county-v-grooms-ala-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack