Soulard v. Vacuum Oil Co.

109 Ala. 387
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1895·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

McOLELLAN, J.

The judgment by default rendered in this case is in the usual and approved form of entry where the service is by attachment of property. It is valid upon its face. And it is the universal rule, thoroughly established in this State, that the court rendering such a judgment is without power to vacate it at a subsequent term upon affirmative considerations not shown by the record of the cause, as, for instance, upon the affidavit of defendant’s attorney that the property attached is not and has never been the property of the defendant. — 2 Brick. Dig. p. 140; 3 Brick. Dig. p.584; Carlisle v. Killebrew, 91 Ala. 351. This judgment, however, is of no force or effect against the defendant, •except in respect of his interest in the property upon which the attachment was levied. — Exchange Bank of Spokane v. Clement, ante, p. 270.

We see no reason for taking the case out of the general rule; and the order of the City Court overruling defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment rendered [389] against Mm on facts de hors the record must be affirmed.

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

Soulard v. Vacuum Oil Co., 109 Ala. 387 (Ala. 1895).

109 Ala. 387 (Soulard v. Vacuum Oil Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dayton Rubber Mfg. Co. v. McCormack
122 So. 643 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
McMahan v. Browne
64 So. 553 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Herron v. Allen
143 N.W. 283 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1913)
Southern Timber & Investment Co. v. English Manufacturing Co.
45 So. 206 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Kress v. Porter
31 So. 377 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)
White v. Simpson
124 Ala. 238 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1899)