Trammell v. Guy
This text of 44 So. 37 (Trammell v. Guy) 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.
Opinion
This suit was commenced by attachment to enforce a money demand. The defendant (appellant) is a nonresident. The writ was levied on certain lands, the property of the defendant. There was no appearance of the defendant; but it appears from the record 1hat notice by publication was given in a newspaper, and that defendant’s place of residence in the state of Texas was unknown. The judgment, which was by default, simply adjudges a recovery against the defendant for the sum claimed, and condemns the property seized to the satisfaction of the judgment.
The point is made, that the judgment does not show such a compliance with section 531 of the Code of 1896 as will support a judgment by default. The criticism is well taken. The jurisdiction, in addition to an actual levy, to warrant a judgment of default, is only obtained by the giving of the nqtice required by the section mentioned; and it has been well decided that the fact that such notice has been, given must appear in the judgment entry, else, a judgment by default cannot be rendered. — Diston v. Hood, 83 Ala. 331, 3 South. 746; Meyer v. Keith, 99 Ala. 519, 13 South. 500; Wilmerding v. Corbin Banking Co., 126 Ala. 268, 275-279, 28 South. 640. [313]*313Tlie judgment must therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.
Ileversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 So. 37, 151 Ala. 311, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trammell-v-guy-ala-1907.