Salvadore v. Howard

Supreme Court of Alabama

Salvadore v. Howard

31 So. 2d 345, 249 Ala. 354, 1947 Ala. LEXIS 361

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 1947

Docket7 Div. 901.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 So. 2d 345 (Salvadore v. Howard) 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

Salvadore v. Howard, 31 So. 2d 345, 249 Ala. 354, 1947 Ala. LEXIS 361 (Ala. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, Justice.

Proceeding by Susie Howard, the landlord, against Willie Salvadore, tenant, originating in a justice of the peace court to recover possession of the rented property, under the provisions of Chapter 3, Title 31, Code 1940.

This is a second appeal and is on the record proper. The first appeal is reported in 247 Ala. 533, 25 So.2d 412.

The tenement sued for in the justice of the peace court was described as'“811 Shahan Avenue, Alabama City, Alabama, the same being Lot Number fifty-six (56) in the Shahan-Walske Addition to Central Alabama City, AlabamaThe judgment in the circuit court recites the jury’s verdict as finding “the issues in favor of the plaintiff for the property sued for, to-wit: 811 Shahan Avenue, Alabama City, Alabama” and then proceeds to render judgment accordingly against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for the identical property described in the verdict.

As we understand the contention of appellant, we are to presume here that the property sued for in-the complaint as above noted is different from that described in the judgment of the circuit court.

The law rules differently, however, for there is nothing in the record to affirm the fact contended for by appellant. The italicized portion of the description above is, seemingly, to more definitely identify the suit property. At any rate, in the absence of a showing to the contrary we cannot presume that the properties are different. The judgments of the trial courts are presumptively correct and,' on appeal, all things are presumed to have been done *355 correctly and proper adjudications made, unless the contrary appears. Yates v. State, 31 Ala.App. 362, 17 So.2d 766(6), certiorari denied, 245 Ala. 490, 17 So.2d 777; Robertson v. State, 29 Ala.App. 399, 197 So. 73, certiorari denied, 240 Ala. 51, 197 So. 75; Caudle v. Cotton, 234 Ala. 126, 173 So. 847(2).

Moreover, a verdict and judgment in the characterized form, “for the property sued for,” on a complaint propérly describing the premises has been held to be a sufficient adjudication. Beck v. Glenn, 69 Ala. 121.

No error is made to appear by the record presented before us and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur. '

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

SIMPSON, Justice.

Proceeding by Susie Howard, the landlord, against Willie Salvadore, tenant, originating in a justice of the peace court to recover possession of the rented property, under the provisions of Chapter 3, Title 31, Code 1940.

This is a second appeal and is on the record proper. The first appeal is reported in 247 Ala. 533, 25 So.2d 412.

The tenement sued for in the justice of the peace court was described as'“811 Shahan Avenue, Alabama City, Alabama, the same being Lot Number fifty-six (56) in the Shahan-Walske Addition to Central Alabama City, AlabamaThe judgment in the circuit court recites the jury’s verdict as finding “the issues in favor of the plaintiff for the property sued for, to-wit: 811 Shahan Avenue, Alabama City, Alabama” and then proceeds to render judgment accordingly against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for the identical property described in the verdict.

As we understand the contention of appellant, we are to presume here that the property sued for in-the complaint as above noted is different from that described in the judgment of the circuit court.

The law rules differently, however, for there is nothing in the record to affirm the fact contended for by appellant. The italicized portion of the description above is, seemingly, to more definitely identify the suit property. At any rate, in the absence of a showing to the contrary we cannot presume that the properties are different. The judgments of the trial courts are presumptively correct and,' on appeal, all things are presumed to have been done *355 correctly and proper adjudications made, unless the contrary appears. Yates v. State, 31 Ala.App. 362, 17 So.2d 766(6), certiorari denied, 245 Ala. 490, 17 So.2d 777; Robertson v. State, 29 Ala.App. 399, 197 So. 73, certiorari denied, 240 Ala. 51, 197 So. 75; Caudle v. Cotton, 234 Ala. 126, 173 So. 847(2).

Moreover, a verdict and judgment in the characterized form, “for the property sued for,” on a complaint propérly describing the premises has been held to be a sufficient adjudication. Beck v. Glenn, 69 Ala. 121.

No error is made to appear by the record presented before us and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 So. 2d 345, 249 Ala. 354, 1947 Ala. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvadore-v-howard-ala-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack