Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

127 Ala. 109

Colley v. Spivey

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1899

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1899-11-15

Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. This 'was an action of assumpsit brought hy the appellee against the appellant; and counted upon the common counts for .work 'and labor done and for money loaned.

Relies on Ledbetter & Co. v. Vinton · Allen v. Lathrop-Hatton Lumber Co. · Truss v. Birmingham, LaGrange & Macon Railroad

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1954

9 state decisions

401899190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DOWDELL, J.

¶1After judgment by default against the appellant in tlie court below, lie made a motion to set it aside on tlie ground that lie had not been served by the sheriff with a copy of the summons and complaint. The return of tlie sheriff endorsed upon the summons and complaint Avas as follows: “Executed by serving a copy on the Avithin named defendant, except as stated beloAV. Sept. 27th, 1898.” Signed, “S. M. Reeves, sheriff of Pike Oo., Ala.” Nothing appears “as stated beloAV,” but the official signature of the sheriff. This Avas a sufficient return by the officer showing an execution of the writ. The words “except as stated beloAV,” there being nothing stated below, can be treated only as surplusage.

¶2The motion to set aside the judgment by default, Avas addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and is not'therefore subject to revision on appeal. “The action of a nisi prius court setting aside or refusing to set aside a judgment by default will not support an appeal to this court. Such orders are not within the statute which requires us to revise the action of lower courts on motion for new trials, and in the absence of statutory provision cannot be considered by us.” — Ledbetter & Co. v. Vinton, 108 Ala. 644; Allen v. Lathrop-Hatton Co., 90 Ala. 490; Truss v. Birmingham, LaG. & M. R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 316.

¶3There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the court beloAV must be affirmed.

/127/ala/109 · .json · Public domain