Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bannister

79 So. 253, 201 Ala. 681, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 204
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMay 16, 1918
Docket6 Div. 720.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 79 So. 253 (Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bannister) 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
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bannister, 79 So. 253, 201 Ala. 681, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 204 (Ala. 1918).

Opinions

SOMERVILLE, J.

Appellee sued appellant on a fire insurance policy, and indorsed on the summons and complaint a demand for trial by jury.

The judgment entry recites:

“Thereupon the defendant * * * comes not but makes default. And a jury trial being waived by the plaintiff in this cause, and same being considered by the court, the court proceeds to ascertain the amount of plaintiff’s damages, which the court, by competent evidence, ascertains to be fifteen hundred dollars”

—and judgment was rendered accordingly.

The bill of exceptions shows that the plaintiff, in open court, waived a trial by jury before the complaint was read to the court. The record nowhere shows that the defendant waived trial by jury, or consented to the plaintiff’s withdrawal of his demand therefor.

[1, 2] This is not a case in which the court is authorized by statute (Code, § 5356) to ascertain the amount of the plaintiff’s demand and render judgment therefor without the intervention of a jury. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. v. Fowler, 76 Ala. 372; Home Protection

Co. v. Caldwell, 85 Ala. 607, 5 South. 338. Unless a jury was waived by the parties, the action of the court in this case was clearly erroneous. When either party demands a trial by jury, the demand cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the other party. General Acts 1915, pp. 939, 940. And we have expressly held that this rule applies to a defendant who is in default. Ex parte Florida Nursery & Trading Co., ante, p. 97, 77 South. 391.

Plaintiff’s waiver of a jury trial, defendant not consenting, was therefore wholly ineffectual, and the judgment was erroneous.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, O. J., and MAYFIELD and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Blackmon v. W.S. Badcock Corp., Inc.
342 So. 2d 367 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1977)
Ex Parte Windsor Highlands Co.
33 So. 2d 353 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1948)
Bozeman v. Dillard
104 So. 402 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Ewart-Brewer Motor Co. v. Cunningham
104 So. 789 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co. v. Lowe
93 So. 765 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Garnett v. Scott
92 So. 408 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Prudential Casualty Co. v. Kerr
80 So. 97 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 So. 253, 201 Ala. 681, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-fire-ins-co-v-bannister-ala-1918.