Ex Parte French

Supreme Court of Alabama

Ex Parte French

147 So. 631, 226 Ala. 297, 1933 Ala. LEXIS 558

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 13, 1933

Docket6 Div. 316.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 147 So. 631 (Ex Parte French) 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 French, 147 So. 631, 226 Ala. 297, 1933 Ala. LEXIS 558 (Ala. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Justice.

On September 6, 1932, on account of the adverse rulings of the court plaintiff took a nonsuit in order to review said several rulings. There was no judgment of the court ordering a- nonsuit. But in order to review such rulings plaintiff took an appeal to this court. It was held bn that appeal that the ’court could not review the rulings of the trial court, because that court had not rendered a final judgment; that the recital on the. minutes that plaintiff takes a nonsuit is not a judgment to that effect, and the appeal was dismissed. Webb v. French, 225 Ala. 617, 144 So. 818. Thereupon, plaintiff made a motion in the circuit court that a judgment of nonsuit be entered. This motion was duly heard on notice, and granted and judgment entered.

The defendant has brought to this court an original petition for mandamus to the judge of that court requiring him to vacate the entry of the judgment, because it was rendered after the term of the court at which plaintiff took a nonsuit, and when the court had no power over it.

The contention of petitioner would probably be well supported if the court had rendered a final judgment, and the motion were to set it aside, and; the motion had not! been continued into the next term. But the court may amend a judgment nunc pro tunc on record evidence, at a subsequent term, or, if no final judgment has been rendered, the cause is in fieri, and a final judgment may of course be rendered at a subsequent term. This legal status was thus fully explained' in the case of Campbell v. Beyers, 189 Ala. 307, 66 So. 651; Clanton v. State, 96 Ala. 111, 11 So. 299, and applied by us in Birmingham v. Andrews, 222 Ala. 362, 132 So. 877.

The record entry that plaintiff takes a nonsuit is in the nature of a request by the plaintiff that such judgment be entered. It is not a disposition of the case, until the court acts upon it and enters a formal judgment of nonsuit. This was done on motion and notice and in due form.

The application for a writ of mandamus is therefore overruled and denied.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied. .

ANDERSON, C. J„ and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

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

FOSTER, Justice.

On September 6, 1932, on account of the adverse rulings of the court plaintiff took a nonsuit in order to review said several rulings. There was no judgment of the court ordering a- nonsuit. But in order to review such rulings plaintiff took an appeal to this court. It was held bn that appeal that the ’court could not review the rulings of the trial court, because that court had not rendered a final judgment; that the recital on the. minutes that plaintiff takes a nonsuit is not a judgment to that effect, and the appeal was dismissed. Webb v. French, 225 Ala. 617, 144 So. 818. Thereupon, plaintiff made a motion in the circuit court that a judgment of nonsuit be entered. This motion was duly heard on notice, and granted and judgment entered.

The defendant has brought to this court an original petition for mandamus to the judge of that court requiring him to vacate the entry of the judgment, because it was rendered after the term of the court at which plaintiff took a nonsuit, and when the court had no power over it.

The contention of petitioner would probably be well supported if the court had rendered a final judgment, and the motion were to set it aside, and; the motion had not! been continued into the next term. But the court may amend a judgment nunc pro tunc on record evidence, at a subsequent term, or, if no final judgment has been rendered, the cause is in fieri, and a final judgment may of course be rendered at a subsequent term. This legal status was thus fully explained' in the case of Campbell v. Beyers, 189 Ala. 307, 66 So. 651; Clanton v. State, 96 Ala. 111, 11 So. 299, and applied by us in Birmingham v. Andrews, 222 Ala. 362, 132 So. 877.

The record entry that plaintiff takes a nonsuit is in the nature of a request by the plaintiff that such judgment be entered. It is not a disposition of the case, until the court acts upon it and enters a formal judgment of nonsuit. This was done on motion and notice and in due form.

The application for a writ of mandamus is therefore overruled and denied.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied. .

ANDERSON, C. J„ and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 631, 226 Ala. 297, 1933 Ala. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-french-ala-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack