Wetzel v. Birmingham Electric Co.

33 So. 2d 882, 250 Ala. 267, 1948 Ala. LEXIS 536
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1948
Docket6 Div. 547.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 33 So. 2d 882 (Wetzel v. Birmingham Electric Co.) 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
Wetzel v. Birmingham Electric Co., 33 So. 2d 882, 250 Ala. 267, 1948 Ala. LEXIS 536 (Ala. 1948).

Opinion

BROWN, Justice.

After final judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s case for want of prosecution, he made motion to set aside the judgment of dismissal on the ground that he had a meritorious case and had no notice that the case was set for trial. The motion was overruled.

There is nothing in the motion to show that the plaintiff was misled by any action of the court or its officers or by the adverse party. Williams v. Tyler, 14 Ala. App. 591, 71 So. 51; Ex parte Tyler, 198 Ala. 696, 73 So. 1002. As the aggressive party in the case it was plaintiff’s duty to follow his case in all of its steps until finally disposed of and no duty rested upon the court or its officers or the adverse party .to advise plaintiff of the setting of the case for trial.

The motion to set the judgment aside and restore the case to the docket was addressed to the sound discretion of the court and is not reviewable on appeal. Carmichael v. Jones & Bro., 16 Ala.App. 194, 76 So. 478; Hamrick v. Town of Albertville, 228 Ala. 666, 155 So. 87.

If the appeal be referred to the final judgment, it at most sustains the jurisdiction here, and on its face is free from error.

There are no assignments of error on the record and the judgment is due to be affirmed. Redd Chemical & Nitrate Co. v. W. T. Clay Mercantile Co., 219 Ala. 478, 122 So. 652.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, C. J., and LIVINGSTON and SIMPSON, JJ-, concur.

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

Related

Ingram v. State
51 So. 3d 1094 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2006)
Ex Parte Maples
885 So. 2d 845 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
Steeley v. Citicorp North America, Inc.
628 So. 2d 641 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1993)
Bowman v. Slade
501 So. 2d 1236 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1987)
Plains Growers, Inc. v. Jordan
519 S.W.2d 633 (Texas Supreme Court, 1974)
Averett v. Averett
52 So. 2d 371 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Irvin v. Ford
49 So. 2d 915 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
City of Birmingham v. Reed
44 So. 2d 607 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 So. 2d 882, 250 Ala. 267, 1948 Ala. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wetzel-v-birmingham-electric-co-ala-1948.