TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Crook v. Rainer Hardware Co.

Crook v. Rainer Hardware Co., 97 So. 635 (Ala. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 11, 1923
Docket
No. 4 Div. 82.
Judges
Miller, Anderson, Sayre, Gardner
Citations
97 So. 635210 Ala. 1781923 Ala. LEXIS 191

Opinion of the Court — Miller

MILLER, J.

This suit was commenced by Rainer Hardware Company, a partnership, against Rachael Crook for $149.88 due on account with interest.

The defendant made no appearance, filed no pleas, and the court rendered judgment by default in favor of the plaintiff, appellee, and against the defendant for $175.20. The *179 defendant prosecutes this appeal from that judgment. There is no bill of exceptions. The appeal is on the record proper.

It affirmatively appears from the record that the plaintiff is a partnership, but in no place in the summons, complaint, or record do the names of the individuals composing the partnership appear. It is reversible error for a judgment by default to be rendered by the court in the name of a partnership, without the names of the parties being set out. This is a default judgment, rendered in the name of a partnership, and the names of the partners do not appear in the record. The complaint is headed “Rainer Hardware Company, a partnership, plaintiffs versus Rachael Crook, defendant,” clearly indicating the plaintiff is a partnership, without giving the names of the partners. The summons states the names of the parties just like the complaint; and they are stated the same way in the judgment. This error will reverse the judgment. Moore v. Burns, 60 Ala. 269 ; Simmons v. Titche, 102 Ala. 317 , 14 South. 786 ; Greer & Walker v. Liipfert Co., 156 Ala. 572 , 47 South. 307 ; Foreman v. Weil, 98 Ala. 495 , 12 South. 815 .

It affirmatively appears in the record that the sheriff executed the summons and complaint by leaving a copy of each with the defendant, Rachael Crook, on October 20, 1922. The court on November 14, 1922, rendered the judgment by default. This judgment was prematurely rendered; it was unauthorized at that time, and it must be reversed on appeal. The defendant was not in default until 30 days after service was perfected on him as required by the statute, when the summons or other process has been executed on the defendant as required by law, either in term time or in vacation, the defendant shall appear and plead, answer or demur thereto within 30 days, or be in default, and on motion of the plaintiff judgment by default may be rendered against him. Section 5346, Code 1907, as amended Gen. Acts 1915, p. 825.

This judgment by default was rendered before the expiration of the 30 days allowed the defendant to plead or demur to the complaint. He was not in default when the judgment by default was entered. The error is manifest, for which the judgment must be reversed. Lawrence v. Stone, 160 Ala. 382 , 49 South. 376 , 135 Am. St. Rep. 105 ; Ivey v. Perry, 97 Ala. 583 , 12 South. 65 ; section 5346, Code 1907, as amended Gen. Acts 1915, p. S25.

For the errors mentioned, the judgment is reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1923: 11929: 11936: 11956: 11957: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Skelton v. Weaver96 So. 2d 288 (Ala. 1957)
  2. Rose v. Beckham86 So. 2d 275 (Ala. 1956)
  3. Middlebrooks v. Evans170 So. 351 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936)
  4. Loper v. E. W. Gates Lumber Co.98 So. 722 (Ala. 1923)
  5. Walker v. First Nat. Bank of Fairfield122 So. 682 (Ala. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Skelton v. Weaver96 So. 2d 288 (Ala. 1957)
  2. Rose v. Beckham86 So. 2d 275 (Ala. 1956)
  3. Middlebrooks v. Evans170 So. 351 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936)
  4. Walker v. First Nat. Bank of Fairfield122 So. 682 (Ala. 1929)
  5. Loper v. E. W. Gates Lumber Co.98 So. 722 (Ala. 1923)

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.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Greer & Walker v. Liipfert-Scales Co., 47 So. 307 (Ala. 1908) 11
Lawrence v. Stone, 49 So. 376 (Ala. 1909) 8
Moore v. Burns & Co., 60 Ala. 269 (1877) 20
Simmons v. Titche Bros., 102 Ala. 317 (1893) 11
Foreman v. Weil Bros., 98 Ala. 495 (1893) 7
Ivey v. Perry, 97 Ala. 583 (1892) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list