Wildsmith v. Graves

Supreme Court of Alabama

Wildsmith v. Graves

96 So. 230, 209 Ala. 294, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 419

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 26, 1923

Docket6 Div. 876.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 96 So. 230 (Wildsmith v. Graves) 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

Wildsmith v. Graves, 96 So. 230, 209 Ala. 294, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 419 (Ala. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

The. record shows that the defendants filed pleas of the general issue and demanded a trial by jury.

The judgment entry shows that when the case was called for trial “the defendants, being solemnly called, came not to insist on their pleas or to otherwise defend this suit,” whereupon it was adjudged that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the amount of his damages was duly submitted to and found by a jury, and a judgment thereon was rendered accordingly.

The judgment thus rendered was neither a judgment by default nor a judgment nil dicit. It was, however, erroneous to render a judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to recover without a verdict of the jury to sustain it. The effect of the pleas of the general issue was to cast upon the plaintiff the burden of proving his cause of action, and it was not sufficient to submit to the jury the question of the amount of damages only. Clements v. Mayfield Woolen Mills, 128 Ala. 332, 29 South. 10; Green v. Jones, 102 Ala. 303, 14 South. 630; Barnard v. Irwin, 8 Ala. App. 544, 62 South. 963, affirmed in Ex parte Irwin, 184 Ala. 666, 63 South. 1027. In Barnard v. Irvin, supra, the cases are fully reviewed.

For the error pointed out, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.'

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELDAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

The. record shows that the defendants filed pleas of the general issue and demanded a trial by jury.

The judgment entry shows that when the case was called for trial “the defendants, being solemnly called, came not to insist on their pleas or to otherwise defend this suit,” whereupon it was adjudged that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the amount of his damages was duly submitted to and found by a jury, and a judgment thereon was rendered accordingly.

The judgment thus rendered was neither a judgment by default nor a judgment nil dicit. It was, however, erroneous to render a judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to recover without a verdict of the jury to sustain it. The effect of the pleas of the general issue was to cast upon the plaintiff the burden of proving his cause of action, and it was not sufficient to submit to the jury the question of the amount of damages only. Clements v. Mayfield Woolen Mills, 128 Ala. 332, 29 South. 10; Green v. Jones, 102 Ala. 303, 14 South. 630; Barnard v. Irwin, 8 Ala. App. 544, 62 South. 963, affirmed in Ex parte Irwin, 184 Ala. 666, 63 South. 1027. In Barnard v. Irvin, supra, the cases are fully reviewed.

For the error pointed out, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.'

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELDAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 So. 230, 209 Ala. 294, 1923 Ala. LEXIS 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wildsmith-v-graves-ala-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack