Crawford v. Kindred

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Crawford v. Kindred

418 So. 2d 908, 1982 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1261

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJuly 21, 1982

DocketCiv. 3264

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 418 So. 2d 908 (Crawford v. Kindred) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crawford v. Kindred, 418 So. 2d 908, 1982 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1261 (Ala. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARD N. SCRUGGS, Retired Circuit Judge.

The defendant appealed directly to this court from an adverse judgment of the small claims court. We dismiss his appeal.

Rule M of the Alabama Small Claims Rules provides that a judgment rendered by the small claims court “may be appealed to the circuit court by the filing of [909]*909a notice of appeal in the office of the clerk of the small claims court within 14 days from the date of the judgment....” Inasmuch as that rule was adopted subsequent to § 12-12-72 of the Code of Alabama (1975), a direct appeal to this court from a small claims judgment is not presently authorized. An appeal taken without authority of law must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction: Hallman v. City of Northport, 386 So.2d 756 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980); 2 Ala. Digest, Appeal and Error, Key No. 1.

It is clear that the defendant has attempted to base his appeal upon subdivision (2) of § 12-12-72 which provides for a direct appeal from the district court to the appropriate appellate court if the parties stipulate that only questions of law are involved and if the district court certifies the questions. Here, the district court belatedly certified a question of law to this court; however, the plaintiffs have never stipulated with the defendant that only a question of law is involved. Hence, both prongs of that subsection are not properly satisfied in this appeal. There has been no substantial compliance with the statute. Therefore, the same end result would be here required even if Rule M did not exist and if that code section had sole application, for appeals which are not taken in the manner prescribed by statute or supreme court rule must be dismissed. LeFlore v. State ex rel Moore, 288 Ala. 310, 260 So.2d 581 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1007, 93 S.Ct. 436, 34 L.Ed.2d 299 (1972).,

The foregoing opinion was prepared by retired circuit judge EDWARD N. SCRUGGS while serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of § 12-18-10(e) of the Code of Alabama (1975), and this opinion is hereby adopted as that of the court.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

All the Judges concur.

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

EDWARD N. SCRUGGS, Retired Circuit Judge.

The defendant appealed directly to this court from an adverse judgment of the small claims court. We dismiss his appeal.

Rule M of the Alabama Small Claims Rules provides that a judgment rendered by the small claims court “may be appealed to the circuit court by the filing of [909]*909a notice of appeal in the office of the clerk of the small claims court within 14 days from the date of the judgment....” Inasmuch as that rule was adopted subsequent to § 12-12-72 of the Code of Alabama (1975), a direct appeal to this court from a small claims judgment is not presently authorized. An appeal taken without authority of law must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction: Hallman v. City of Northport, 386 So.2d 756 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980); 2 Ala. Digest, Appeal and Error, Key No. 1.

It is clear that the defendant has attempted to base his appeal upon subdivision (2) of § 12-12-72 which provides for a direct appeal from the district court to the appropriate appellate court if the parties stipulate that only questions of law are involved and if the district court certifies the questions. Here, the district court belatedly certified a question of law to this court; however, the plaintiffs have never stipulated with the defendant that only a question of law is involved. Hence, both prongs of that subsection are not properly satisfied in this appeal. There has been no substantial compliance with the statute. Therefore, the same end result would be here required even if Rule M did not exist and if that code section had sole application, for appeals which are not taken in the manner prescribed by statute or supreme court rule must be dismissed. LeFlore v. State ex rel Moore, 288 Ala. 310, 260 So.2d 581 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1007, 93 S.Ct. 436, 34 L.Ed.2d 299 (1972).,

The foregoing opinion was prepared by retired circuit judge EDWARD N. SCRUGGS while serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of § 12-18-10(e) of the Code of Alabama (1975), and this opinion is hereby adopted as that of the court.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 So. 2d 908, 1982 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-kindred-alacivapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack