S. J. Petree & Co. v. Phillip Olim & Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

S. J. Petree & Co. v. Phillip Olim & Co.

89 So. 602, 206 Ala. 333, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 117

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 1921

Docket8 Div. 376.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 So. 602 (S. J. Petree & Co. v. Phillip Olim & Co.) 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

S. J. Petree & Co. v. Phillip Olim & Co., 89 So. 602, 206 Ala. 333, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 117 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

[1] The fact that the defendant in an action at law has demanded a trial by jury does not relieve him of the obligation to plead, answer, or demur ,to the complaint within 30 days from the service of process as required by the Act of September 28, 1915 (Gen. Acts 1915, p. 825), amending section 5346 of the Code. After 30 days he is in default, and subject to judgment, although the time for the next jury session has not yet arrived.

[2] The complaint in this case is on an itemized and verified account alleged to be on file. The appeal is on the record only, and there is nothing to contradict the allegations of the complaint. In such a case, a judgment on the account, with interest, without resort to a writ of inquiry, is expressly authorized by section 3971 of the Code, and so far as appears the judgment herein was properly rendered by default, and the amount properly ascertained by the court without the aid of a jury. If the conditions prescribed by the statute for such a judgment were not in fact existent, their absence should have been shown by a bill of exceptions.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

[1] The fact that the defendant in an action at law has demanded a trial by jury does not relieve him of the obligation to plead, answer, or demur ,to the complaint within 30 days from the service of process as required by the Act of September 28, 1915 (Gen. Acts 1915, p. 825), amending section 5346 of the Code. After 30 days he is in default, and subject to judgment, although the time for the next jury session has not yet arrived.

[2] The complaint in this case is on an itemized and verified account alleged to be on file. The appeal is on the record only, and there is nothing to contradict the allegations of the complaint. In such a case, a judgment on the account, with interest, without resort to a writ of inquiry, is expressly authorized by section 3971 of the Code, and so far as appears the judgment herein was properly rendered by default, and the amount properly ascertained by the court without the aid of a jury. If the conditions prescribed by the statute for such a judgment were not in fact existent, their absence should have been shown by a bill of exceptions.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 602, 206 Ala. 333, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-j-petree-co-v-phillip-olim-co-ala-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack