King v. Dearing-Orman Mercantile Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

King v. Dearing-Orman Mercantile Co.

81 So. 861, 17 Ala. App. 83, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 109

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 1919

Docket8 Div. 589.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 So. 861 (King v. Dearing-Orman Mercantile Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

King v. Dearing-Orman Mercantile Co., 81 So. 861, 17 Ala. App. 83, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 109 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

The appeal here is not from the'judgment rendered on the verdict *84 of the jury, but from an ordfcr of the circuit judge who presided at the trial, indorsed on the defendant’s motion for a new trial, purporting to set aside the judgment of the court and grant a new trial. This order was made after the circuit court of Franklin county had recessed and the judge had returned to his home — Jasper — in another judicial circuit. The motion for a new trial does not appear to have been filed until after the order of the judge was indorsed thereon, and the order appears to have been indorsed on the paper presented as the motion for a new trial, and not entered upon the minutes of the court.

[1] The power to set aside the judgment of the court and grant a new trial resides in the court, and involves the jurisdictional elements of time and place appointed by law for the exercise of judicial powers. Norwood v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 149 Ala. 151, 42 South. 683; Grantham v. State; 3 Ala. App. 168, 57 South. 1025; Patton v. State, 160 Ala. 111, 49 South. 809; Hodo v. State, 156 Ala. 43, 47 South. 134; Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 56, 43 South. 808; Walker v. State, 142 Ala. 7, 39 South. 242; Johnson v. State, 141 Ala. 7, 37 South. 421, 109 Am. St. Rep. 17.

[2, 3] The order of the judge, from which this appeal is prosecuted, was therefore void, and will not support an appeal. Grantham v. State, supra; Patton v. State, supra; Walker v. State, supra; Porter & Co. v. Godfrey et al., 14 Ala. App. 567, 70 South. 204, and authorities therein cited.

Appeal dismissed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The appeal here is not from the'judgment rendered on the verdict *84 of the jury, but from an ordfcr of the circuit judge who presided at the trial, indorsed on the defendant’s motion for a new trial, purporting to set aside the judgment of the court and grant a new trial. This order was made after the circuit court of Franklin county had recessed and the judge had returned to his home — Jasper — in another judicial circuit. The motion for a new trial does not appear to have been filed until after the order of the judge was indorsed thereon, and the order appears to have been indorsed on the paper presented as the motion for a new trial, and not entered upon the minutes of the court.

[1] The power to set aside the judgment of the court and grant a new trial resides in the court, and involves the jurisdictional elements of time and place appointed by law for the exercise of judicial powers. Norwood v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 149 Ala. 151, 42 South. 683; Grantham v. State; 3 Ala. App. 168, 57 South. 1025; Patton v. State, 160 Ala. 111, 49 South. 809; Hodo v. State, 156 Ala. 43, 47 South. 134; Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 56, 43 South. 808; Walker v. State, 142 Ala. 7, 39 South. 242; Johnson v. State, 141 Ala. 7, 37 South. 421, 109 Am. St. Rep. 17.

[2, 3] The order of the judge, from which this appeal is prosecuted, was therefore void, and will not support an appeal. Grantham v. State, supra; Patton v. State, supra; Walker v. State, supra; Porter & Co. v. Godfrey et al., 14 Ala. App. 567, 70 South. 204, and authorities therein cited.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 861, 17 Ala. App. 83, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-dearing-orman-mercantile-co-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack