City of Birmingham v. Simmons
City of Birmingham v. Simmons.
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
It is insisted that the penalty of 10 per cent, as provided by section 6153 should *310 not be taxed against the defendant upon the affirmance of the moneyed judgment, because there was no legal supersedeas of the judgment as the defendant while giving a supersedeas bond had no surety thereon. There might be merit in this contention, but for section 1900 of the Code of 1923, which authorizes the mayor to execute the bond and that no sureties be required. Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505 , 126 So. 169 . Nor is a judgment for the 10 per cent., dependent upon the fact that there must be more than one obligor upon the bond, as section 6153 expressly provides that the judgment must be rendered against “all or any of the obligors on the bond.” (Italics supplied.) The defendant was an obligor on the bond.
We are also of the opinion that section 6153 applies to an affirmance of all judgments or decrees for money regardless of the nature or character of the defendant; that is, includes judgments against municipalities.
We think that section S565 of the Code provides for interest from the rendition of the judgment and is broad enough to include the one against the city of Birmingham.
Motion, denied.
All the Justices concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(predecessor to Ala. Code 1975, § 8-8-10 , broad enough to include municipalities)
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.