Middlebrooks v. Evans

Alabama Court of Appeals

Middlebrooks v. Evans

170 So. 351, 27 Ala. App. 275, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 155

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1936

Docket2 Div. 607.

StatusPublished

This text of 170 So. 351 (Middlebrooks v. Evans) 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

Middlebrooks v. Evans, 170 So. 351, 27 Ala. App. 275, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 155 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appellee brought suit against appellant, in the court below, on certain promissory notes, the complaint consisting of three counts. The record shows that service of the summons and complaint was had on defendant on February 10, 1936, and that judgment by default was rendered for the' amount sued for against appellant on the 29th day thereafter. From said judgment this appeal was taken, and is here rested ' upon three assignments . of errors, each of the same import, and to the effect that the judgment from which this appeal was taken was prematurely rendered. The assignment of errors are sustained. If a judgment by default is prematurely rendered, as affirmatively appears in this record, it must be reversed. This has been repeatedly held, but we' deem it unnecessary to cite other than the following decisions which are exactly in point. Walker v. First National Bank of Fairfield, 219 Ala. 444, 122 So. 682; Crook v. Rainer Hardware Co., 210 Ala. 178, 179, 97 So. 635.

Further discussion need not be indulged.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appellee brought suit against appellant, in the court below, on certain promissory notes, the complaint consisting of three counts. The record shows that service of the summons and complaint was had on defendant on February 10, 1936, and that judgment by default was rendered for the' amount sued for against appellant on the 29th day thereafter. From said judgment this appeal was taken, and is here rested ' upon three assignments . of errors, each of the same import, and to the effect that the judgment from which this appeal was taken was prematurely rendered. The assignment of errors are sustained. If a judgment by default is prematurely rendered, as affirmatively appears in this record, it must be reversed. This has been repeatedly held, but we' deem it unnecessary to cite other than the following decisions which are exactly in point. Walker v. First National Bank of Fairfield, 219 Ala. 444, 122 So. 682; Crook v. Rainer Hardware Co., 210 Ala. 178, 179, 97 So. 635.

Further discussion need not be indulged.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 So. 351, 27 Ala. App. 275, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middlebrooks-v-evans-alactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack