Ex parte Dean

Supreme Court of Alabama

Ex parte Dean

45 So. 152, 154 Ala. 265, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 653

DecidedDecember 19, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 45 So. 152 (Ex parte Dean) 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

Ex parte Dean, 45 So. 152, 154 Ala. 265, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 653 (Ala. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

The writ of mandamus sought in this proceeding must be denied, for the reason that the motion for the judgment non obstante veredicto was filed after the entry of the judgment in favor of the defendant, as affirmatively shown by the petition and the exhibits thereto. The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must precede the entry of judgment on the verdict. — Freeman on Judg. § 7; 11 Ency. PI. & Pr. [269]*269p. 920; Scheible v. Hurt (Ky.) 12 S. W. 628; State v. Bank, 6 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 218, 45 Am. Dec. 280. It follows that the court was without right to render judgment non obstante veredicto on the belated motion therefor, and that the order for supersedeas and granting a rehearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was ill-advised, since the defendant, Saxon, had then a valid judgment on verdict in his favor, and the execution issued on the invalid judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff was likewise invalid.

The writ prayed for is therefore denied.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson, Simpson, Anderson, and Denson, JJ., concur.

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

McCLELLAN, J.

The writ of mandamus sought in this proceeding must be denied, for the reason that the motion for the judgment non obstante veredicto was filed after the entry of the judgment in favor of the defendant, as affirmatively shown by the petition and the exhibits thereto. The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must precede the entry of judgment on the verdict. — Freeman on Judg. § 7; 11 Ency. PI. & Pr. [269]*269p. 920; Scheible v. Hurt (Ky.) 12 S. W. 628; State v. Bank, 6 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 218, 45 Am. Dec. 280. It follows that the court was without right to render judgment non obstante veredicto on the belated motion therefor, and that the order for supersedeas and granting a rehearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was ill-advised, since the defendant, Saxon, had then a valid judgment on verdict in his favor, and the execution issued on the invalid judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff was likewise invalid.

The writ prayed for is therefore denied.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson, Simpson, Anderson, and Denson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 So. 152, 154 Ala. 265, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-dean-ala-1907.