Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Ala. 26

Walker v. Hale

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1849

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1849-01-15

The next of kin having appeared and entered their caveat, an issue was made up and submitted to a jury, who returned their verdict, establishing the instrument, as the will of the deceased, and a decree was rendered in accordance therewith. In the progress of the trial, a hill of exceptions ivas taken, and subsequently a motion was made for a new trial, which was continued by the court.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““There must be an end of litigation, and a time must come when the power of the court over the judgment must cease, notwithstanding the motion may not have been disposed of.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Bates v. Woodward

Relies on Stephenson v. Mansony · Reese v. Billing · Bridges & Beers v. Miller

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1849-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 1923

14 state decisions

60184918501860187018801890190019101920decided

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 →

DARGAN, J.

¶1A court cannot grant a new trial, after the. term is closed, at which the cause was tried, unless a motion during the term be made, and for some cause continued until the next term; but if the motion is made, the legal effect of it is to retain the matter for that purpose, under the control of the -court. The cause is said still to be in fieri, by reason of the motion; and the court may make any order afterwards that may be proper. Reese v. Billings, 9 Ala. 263; 3 Ala. 746; Stephenson v. Mansony, 4 Ala. 317. Yet there must be an end of litigation, and a time must come when the power of the court over the judgment must cease, notwithstanding the motion may not have been disposed of. If, instead of pressing for the action of the court on the motion, the party takes a writ of error to the Supreme Court, and the cause is there heard' and determined, and the judgment is affirmed, the judgment is final, and the inferior court no longer retains- the power to grant a new trial. The Orphans’ Court had no authority to grant the motion, if it was made to appear that the final decree probating the will had been affirmed by this court.

¶2But a writ of error is not the proper remedy to correct the erroneous act of the county Judge. This writ can only be issued to revise a final sentence, judgment, or decree. The .granting of a new trial is neither of these.

¶3Let the writ of error be dismissed.

/16/ala/26 · .json · Public domain