Stewart v. Williams

Supreme Court of Alabama

Stewart v. Williams

33 Ala. 492

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 33 Ala. 492 (Stewart v. Williams) 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

Stewart v. Williams, 33 Ala. 492 (Ala. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.—

The remedy provided by the Code, (sections 2408, et seg.,) is purely statutory. To claim the benefit of its remedial provisions, the applicant must set forth in his petition facts which show that, without fault on his part, he “ has been prevented from making his defense by surprise, accident, mistake or fraudand this application must be made within four months after the rendition of judgment.

In Pratt v. Keils, 28 Ala. 390, and in White v. Ryan & Martin, 31 Ala. 400, we construed the sections of the Code which confer the remedy invoked in this case. In the case last cited, the reasons offered in support of the application for a rehearing were much stronger than those found in this record. Yet we said in that case, “If all the facts stated in it are true, they would not authorize ,any court, having any regard for well established legal principles and a sound public policy, to say that the ■defendant was prevented from making his defense in the original cause, without fault on his part.” That case is [494]*494decisive of this. The jaetition being fatally defective, it did not present a case of which the court could take jurisdiction, in this summary way; and the circuit court did right in repudiating the cause. The demurrer is not found in the record; and, if necessary, we would intend! it was formally put in.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed.

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

STONE, J.—

The remedy provided by the Code, (sections 2408, et seg.,) is purely statutory. To claim the benefit of its remedial provisions, the applicant must set forth in his petition facts which show that, without fault on his part, he “ has been prevented from making his defense by surprise, accident, mistake or fraudand this application must be made within four months after the rendition of judgment.

In Pratt v. Keils, 28 Ala. 390, and in White v. Ryan & Martin, 31 Ala. 400, we construed the sections of the Code which confer the remedy invoked in this case. In the case last cited, the reasons offered in support of the application for a rehearing were much stronger than those found in this record. Yet we said in that case, “If all the facts stated in it are true, they would not authorize ,any court, having any regard for well established legal principles and a sound public policy, to say that the ■defendant was prevented from making his defense in the original cause, without fault on his part.” That case is [494]*494decisive of this. The jaetition being fatally defective, it did not present a case of which the court could take jurisdiction, in this summary way; and the circuit court did right in repudiating the cause. The demurrer is not found in the record; and, if necessary, we would intend! it was formally put in.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ala. 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-williams-ala-1859.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack