Case ID: ala_42/html/0404-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GARLICK vs. DUNN, Executor.
    [ASSUMPSIT — COUKTS—TIME OP HOLDING.]
    1. Courts must be held within the time prescribed by law■ — When a time is prescribed by law within which a court shall be held, it is essential to the validity of the court that its jurisdiction should be exercised within the time prescribed, and if it transacts business at another and a different time, its acts done within that time, are absolutely void.
    2. Same ; same. — Although a circuit court, by misunderstanding, was held the week before the time appointed by law for holding the same, and the first week of the term proper was regarded as the second, this will not effect the validity of a judgment rendered on the second day of the second week.
    3. Appeal must be talcen in name of all the defendants.' — When judgment in the court below is against two defendants, and the appeal is taken in the name of only one, it will be dismissed on motion ; but the appeal may be amended.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Bussell.
    Tried before tbe Hon. Bobert Dougherty.
    The appellee’s testator, one D. N. Gerald, instituted Ms suit against the appellant, and ¥m. K. Aldridge, on the 9th February, 1859, the cause of action being a promissory note. At the spring term, 1866, there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the suit having been duly revived in the name of the executor. The facts necessary to understand the questions of law decided in the case, will sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court.
    John M. Phillips, for appellant.
    L. F. McCoy, contra.
    
   JUDGE, J.

-We concede the correctness of the principle insisted upon by the appellant, that when a time is prescribed by law within which a court shall be held, it is essential to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court, that it act within the time prescribed, and that should it act at another and a different time, such acts are absolutely void.— Wightman v. Karsner, 20 Ala. 446. But this principle has no application to the present case. We judicially know that Monday, the 14th of May, 1866, was the time appointed by law for the holding of the spring term of the circuit court for Russell county; and we are informed by the record that the cause was tried, and a judgment rendered therein, on the 15th May, 1866, the second day of the term. The fact that a pretended court, by misunderstanding, may have been held the week before, and that the first week of the term proper, was regarded as the second, can have no influence upon the case. We are not called upon to pronounce upon the validity of any action of the court at a time when no court was authorized by law to be held ; and such not being this case, we would be compelled to affirm the judgment but for the fact that the appeal is not regularly taken. The judgment is against William EL. Aldridge and Edgar Garlick, and the appeal is in the name of Garlick alone. On this ground, a motion is made to dismiss the appeal, and we feel bound to grant it. — Shep. Dig. 563, Sec. 11. If it is desired, however, the appeal may be amended.

Appeal dismissed.