State ex rel. King v. Pearce

71 So. 656, 14 Ala. App. 628, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 76
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 10, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 71 So. 656 (State ex rel. King v. Pearce) 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
State ex rel. King v. Pearce, 71 So. 656, 14 Ala. App. 628, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 76 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

BROWN, J.

Section 2496 of the Code provides: “All actions on contracts, express or implied; all personal actions, except for injuries to the reputation, survive in favor of and against the personal representative.”

Section 2497 provides: “Real actions to try the title, or for the recovery of the possession of lands, and actions for injuries to lands, survive in favor of the heirs, devisees, or personal representatives, and against heirs, devisees, tenants, or personal representatives, according to their respective rights,” etc.

Section 2499: “No action abates by the death or other disability of the plaintiff or defendant, if the cause of action survive or continue; but the same must, on motion, within twelve months thereafter, be revived in the name of * * * the legal representative of the deceased, his successor, or party in interest,” etc.

(1) At common law, whether the action was real or personal, the death of either party put an end to the suit; and, if the cause of action survived, a new suit might be brought, in the case of the death of the plaintiff, by his personal representative. — 1 Cyc. 47, A. To avoid the necessity of allowing a suit to abate under such conditions, these statutes were enacted, providing a course of procedure, for continuing the original suit to final judgment on the merits.—Evans v. Welch, 63 Ala. 250. Otherwise stated, the right to revive and continue the original suit is statutory.— 1 Cyc. 48; Gould v. Car, 33 Fla. 523, 15 South. 259, 24 L. R. A. 130; Neal v. Haygood, 1 Ga. 514; In re Palmer, 115 N. Y. 493, 22 N. E. 221; Green v. Watkins, 6 Wheat. 260, 5 L. Ed. 256.

(2-4) These statutes, being in pari materia, must be construed together; and, when so construed, it is clear that in actions on contract and all personal actions, if the plaintiff dies and the cause of action survives, the action survives in favor of the personal representative.—Wynn, as Adm’r, v. Tallapoosa County [630]*630Bank, 168 Ala. 492, 53 South. 228. In such actions the terms “legal representative,” “his successor,” and “party in interest,” have reference only to the personal representative of the deceased, and such personal representative is the only proper or necessary party.—Thompson v. Lee, 31 Ala. 292. In actions to try the title to or recover the possession of lands, on the death of the plaintiff the action survives in favor of the heirs as well as the personal representative, and the action may be revived in the name of either the heirs at law or the personal representative.—Rowland & Heifner v. Ladiga’s Heirs, 21 Ala. 9; Jordan v. Abercrombie, 15 Ala. 580; Leatherwood, et al. v. Sullivan, et al., Ex’rs, 81 Ala. 458, 1 South. 718; Espalla v. Gottschalf, 95 Ala. 258, 10 South. 755; 1 Cyc. 89(11).

The order of the circuit court overruling the petitioners’ motion to revive in the names of petitioners as the only heirs at law of the deceased plaintiff was correct.

(5) The petition, on its face, not making a case entitling the petitioners to the relief prayed, the petition will be dismissed without the issue of the rule nisi.—26 Cyc. 471; Moore v. Waco Building Ass’n, 92 Tex. 265, 47 S. W. 716.

Petition dismissed.

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

Related

Allen v. Scott (In re Scott)
481 B.R. 119 (N.D. Alabama, 2012)
King v. National Spa and Pool Institute
607 So. 2d 1241 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1992)
Matthews v. Matthews
599 So. 2d 1218 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Wells v. Wells
376 So. 2d 750 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1979)
Simmons v. Clemco Industries
368 So. 2d 509 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1979)
Golatte v. Mathews
394 F. Supp. 1203 (M.D. Alabama, 1975)
McGough v. State ex rel. Stovall
57 So. 2d 527 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1952)
Kendrick v. State Ex Rel. Shoemaker
54 So. 2d 442 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
State Ex Rel. Shull v. McLaughlin
1932 OK 294 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Stoer v. Ocklawaha River Farms Co.
138 So. 270 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Ex Parte Corder
134 So. 130 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Gaston v. Cunninghame
113 So. 309 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Ex Parte Tyler
81 So. 853 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 So. 656, 14 Ala. App. 628, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-king-v-pearce-alactapp-1916.