Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

213 Ala. 223

104 So 402

Bozeman v. Dillard

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 16, 1925

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1925-04-16

Relies on Prudential Casualty Co. v. Kerr · Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co. v. Lowe · Woodstock Operating Corporation v. Quinn

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-04-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 1975 · most notably Ewart v. Cunningham (1929), Morris v. Corona Coal Co. (1926)

28 state decisions

120192519301940195019601970decided

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 →

THOMAS, J.

¶1 The petition is for mandamus to the judge of the law and equity court of Franklin county, to vacate an order made on motion as to assessment of damages by the court after default when a jury was demanded.

¶2 The provisions of section -7881, Code of .1923, are specific, in that either party may have the damages assessed by a jury. The statute merely declares the rule established by this court concerning the right to a jury when demanded, and the same may not be waived without the consent of the adverse party. Prudential Casualty Co. v. Kerr, 202 Ala. 259, 80 So. 97; Ex parte Florida Nursery & Trading Co., 201 Ala. 97, 77 So. 391; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bannister, 201 Ala. 681, 79 So. 253; Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v. Lowe, 208 Ala. 12, 93 So. 765.

¶3 The judgment by default against defendant was interlocutory until there was a proper assessment of the damages by a jury on execution of writ of inquiry. The 30-day statute has application to a valid judgment. Code 1923, § 6670. • The court did not lose control over the judgment by *225 default to restore the case to the docket for the execution of the writ of inquiry and a proper assessment of the damages hy a jury as demanded by the plaintiff. Moreover, there was no motion made or application by petitioner to the court to set aside the order complained of. Ex parte Edwards, 123 Ala. 102, 26 So. 643; Hill v. Tarver, 130 Ala. 592, 30 So. 499; Moseley v. Collins, 133 Ala. 326, 32 So. 131.

¶4 The writ is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JL, concur.
/213/ala/223 · .json · Public domain