TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hobson-Starnes Coal Co. v. Alabama Coal & Coke Co.

Hobson-Starnes Coal Co. v. Alabama Coal & Coke Company

Hobson-Starnes Coal Co. v. Ala. Coal & Coke Co., 66 So. 622 (Ala. 1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 7, 1914
Judges
Gardner, Graffenried, McClellan, Sayre
Citations
66 So. 622189 Ala. 4811914 Ala. LEXIS 184
Disposition
Affirmed.
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Assumpsit. 1. Bankruptcy; Attachment; Effect on Garnishment m Aid of.— Where an attachment is sued out against a defendant within four months of defendant’s bankruptcy, a dissolution follows, and a garnishment issued in aid of such attachment falls with the attachment. 2. Judgment; Vacation; Power of Court. — A court of record has inherent power at all times to remove from its records a void judgment, and this power is not affected by practice acts whereby the power over final judgment is restricted to thirty days.
Summary
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. C. B. Smith. Assumpsit by the Hobson-Starnes Coal Company against the Alabama Coal & Coke Company, with garnishment in aid thereof to the Illinois Central Railroad Company. From an order setting aside the judgment rendered against the garnishee, plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals. The garnishee answered indebted, and suggested, among other claimants of the garnished funds, the trustees in bankruptcy of the defendant Alabama Coal & Coke Company. The trustee filed his appearance in the case, but no issue was made up between the trustee in bankruptcy and the plaintiff as to the right to the garnished funds but plaintiff proceeded to judgment by default against defendant, and to take judgment on garnishee’s answer against it. More than 30 days after the rendition of the judgment, the garnishee appeared and moved on various grounds to set aside the judgment thus rendered, on the theory that the judgment was void. The court granted the order.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McClellan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McCLELLAN, J.

It affirmatively appears from the record certified for appeal that, prior to the attempted pronouncement of judgment against the garnishee, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, by the circuit court of Jefferson county, Ala., at the suit of Hobson-Starnes Coal Company (Alabama Coal & Coke Company, defendant), and within four months before the fidjudication of the Alabama Coal and Coke Company’s bankruptcy, the last-named entity was adjudged a bankrupt; *483 which event served to dissolve the attachment issued by the state court, and, in necessary consequence, forbade the rendition of judgment thereon against the garnishee, unless the trustee in bankruptcy invoked the retention of the lien of the attachment for the benefit of the bankrupt estate.—Bankruptcy Act, § 67f (U. S. Comp. St. 1913, § 9651f) ; Matter of Ala., C. & C. Co. (D. C.) 31 Am. Bankr. Rep. 387, 391, 210 Fed. 940 .

Independent of — unaffected by — the practice act in force in Jefferson county’s circuit court, whereby the power of the court over final judgments is restricted to 30 days after their , rendition, that court, at any and all times, has the inherent power to remove from its records a void judgment. —Buchanan v. Thompson, 70 Ala. 401 ; Sweeney v. Tritsch, 151 Ala. 242 , 44 South. 184 .

The circuit court did not err in setting aside and vacating, by its order of June 28, 1913, the judgment by default theretofore rendered on May 10, 1913.

Affirmed.

Sayre, de Graffenried, and Gardner, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1919: 11926: 11927: 11934: 11943: 11950: 11954: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Griffin v. Proctor14 So. 2d 116 (Ala. 1943)
  2. Dulin v. Johnson113 So. 397 (Ala. 1927)
  3. Pickens v. Clark84 So. 738 (Ala. 1919)
  4. Ex Parte R. H. Byrd Contracting Co.156 So. 579 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934)
  5. Pigford v. Billingsley84 So. 2d 661 (Ala. Ct. App. 1954)
  6. Citizens Bank v. Heyward142 S.E. 651 (S.C. 1926) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Pigford v. Billingsley84 So. 2d 661 (Ala. Ct. App. 1954)
  2. Cullars v. Callan59 So. 2d 608 (Ala. Ct. App. 1950)
  3. Griffin v. Proctor14 So. 2d 116 (Ala. 1943)
  4. Ex Parte R. H. Byrd Contracting Co.156 So. 579 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934)
  5. Dulin v. Johnson113 So. 397 (Ala. 1927)
  6. Citizens Bank v. Heyward142 S.E. 651 (S.C. 1926) · Dissent

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Sweeney v. Tritsch, 44 So. 184 (Ala. 1907) 67
Buchanan v. Thomason, 70 Ala. 401 (1881) 24
In re Ala. Coal & Coke Co., 210 F. 940 (W.D. Ky. 1913) 5

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