Graham v. Reynolds
This text of 45 Ala. 578 (Graham v. Reynolds) 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.
Opinion
The judgment in this case was rendered in a summary proceeding, on motion against appellant, H. Graham, as tax collector of Calhoun county, and the other appellants as his sureties. The judgment is by nil dicit.
The judgment entry fails to state the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction, or to show the liability of the defendants.
[580]*580From the earliest history of this court, it has been often and uniformly held, that in such cases, it must appear by the judgment entry, when the judgment is by default, that the defendant had the notice which the law requires, and that the facts were proved which give the court jurisdiction, and show the liability of the defendant for the debt or penalty sought to be recovered. If the defendant appear, as he does where the judgment is by nil dicit, it is evidence of notice, nothing more; every other fact necessary to entitle the plaintiff to judgment must be proved, and appear in the judgment entry. — Smith v. Br. Bank at Mobile, 5 Ala. 26; Andrews v. Br. Bank at Mobile, 10 Ala. 375 ; Barclay, Adm’r, v. Barclay, 42 Ala., 345 ; Conoley v. A. &. T. Railroad, 29 Ala. 373.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 Ala. 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-reynolds-ala-1871.