Reed v. Hammond

Supreme Court of Alabama

Reed v. Hammond

71 So. 692, 196 Ala. 302, 1916 Ala. LEXIS 399

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 20, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 So. 692 (Reed v. Hammond) 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

Reed v. Hammond, 71 So. 692, 196 Ala. 302, 1916 Ala. LEXIS 399 (Ala. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

This appeal is from rulings of the circuit court sustaining a demurrer to appellant’s petition for a rehearing under section 5372 of the Code, and dismissing the petition, and overruling his motion, made 12 days later, to set aside the former order and allow an amendment to the petition.

(1, 2) The original petition was fatally defective in its failure to state any facts in support of its prayer for relief, and was subject to the demurrer.—Chastain v. Armstrong, 85 Ala. 215, 3 South. 788. It does not appear that petitioner then offered to amend the petition, and it was properly dismissed.

(3) Conceding, without deciding, that the entertainment of his subsequent motion to set aside that order was not within the discretion of the court, nevertheless it was without merit, because it was not accompanied by an offer to amend the petition in such manner as to correct one of its substantial and fatal defects, viz., by a sworn statement of the facts showing that petitioner had a good and meritorious defense to the action, and that the judgment was therefore inequitable.—Dunklin v. Wilson, 64 Ala. 162; Chastain v. Armstrong, 85 Ala. 215, 3 South. 788; Code, § 5373.

[304]*304As to the rulings complained of, the trial court does not appear to have been in error, and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Mayfield and Thomas, JJ., concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

This appeal is from rulings of the circuit court sustaining a demurrer to appellant’s petition for a rehearing under section 5372 of the Code, and dismissing the petition, and overruling his motion, made 12 days later, to set aside the former order and allow an amendment to the petition.

(1, 2) The original petition was fatally defective in its failure to state any facts in support of its prayer for relief, and was subject to the demurrer.—Chastain v. Armstrong, 85 Ala. 215, 3 South. 788. It does not appear that petitioner then offered to amend the petition, and it was properly dismissed.

(3) Conceding, without deciding, that the entertainment of his subsequent motion to set aside that order was not within the discretion of the court, nevertheless it was without merit, because it was not accompanied by an offer to amend the petition in such manner as to correct one of its substantial and fatal defects, viz., by a sworn statement of the facts showing that petitioner had a good and meritorious defense to the action, and that the judgment was therefore inequitable.—Dunklin v. Wilson, 64 Ala. 162; Chastain v. Armstrong, 85 Ala. 215, 3 South. 788; Code, § 5373.

[304]*304As to the rulings complained of, the trial court does not appear to have been in error, and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Mayfield and Thomas, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 So. 692, 196 Ala. 302, 1916 Ala. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-hammond-ala-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack