Case ID: ala-app_7/html/0187-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WALKER, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Coats, Sheriff, v. M. J. Elkan & Co.
    
      Assumpsit.
    
    (Decided December 19, 1912.
    Rehearing denied February 14, 1913.
    60 South. 941.)
    1. Appeal and Error; Appeal Bond; Waiver. — A joinder in error is a submission by the appellee to the jurisdiction of the appellate court and amounts to a waiver of an appeal, and of any steps required to effectuate it, and hence, it was waiver of any insufficiency of the appeal bond.
    2. Judgments; Default; Requisites.- — The judgment in this case examined aud held to show a prior filing in the court of an itemized statement of the account sued on, verified by the affidavit of a competent person, made before and certified by an officer having authority to take and certify affidavits as prescribed by section 3971, Code 1907, and hence, entitling the court to enter judgment without submitting a writ of inquiry to the jury.
    Appear from Clarke Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. John T. Lackxand.
    Assumpsit by M. J. Elkan & Company against E. P. Forwood, revived on the death of defendant in the name of C. A. Coats, sheriff, as administrator. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The appeal is on the record from a judgment by default. The judgment recited, after the usual formula, for judgments by default, “is therefore considered and adjudged that the plaintiff have judgment against the defendant (naming them both) on verified account filed mth tbe clerk, verified by tbe affidavit'of a competent person as required by law, for tbe sum of $319.46.” Tbe errors complained of are that tbe court erred in rendering judgment without first having rendered a judgment by default against tbe defendant, and erred in rendering judgment against defendant without a writ of inquiry.
    Wilson & Tucker, and Goodwin & McIntyre, for appellant.
    Tbe judgment is void for non-compliance with tbe statute. — Section 3971, Code 1907; Parsons L. Go. v. West-Stegall G. & M. Go., 163 Ala. 594; Greer & Walker v. Liipfert 8.'Go., 156 Ala. 572. See also in this same connection Doe v. Whitman, 36 Ala. 604; Dis-tan v. Hood, 83 Ala. 331; Myer v. Keith, 99 Ala. 519. Having joined in tbe assignment of error appellee waived any insufficiency in tbe appeal. — Thompson v. Lea, 28 Ala. 453; Myers v. Segars, 41 Ala. 383.
    T. J. Bedsole, and Martin & Martin, for appellee.
    Tbe appeal should be dismissed as tbe appeal bond was insufficient. — Section 2872, Code 1907; Fayette County v. Ernest, 123 Ala. 631. The judgment was sufficient to show that tbe account Avas duly verified by affidavit of a competent person so as to relieve tbe court of tbe necessity of submitting an inquiry to tbe jury.- — Sections 3970 and 3971, Code 1907; Sullivan v. Brushagle, 111 Ala. 114; Lunsford v. Butler, 102 Ala, 403; Elyton v. Morgan, 88 Ala. 434.
   WALKER, P. J.

-The motion of tbe appellee to dismiss tbe appeal because of an alleged insufficiency of tbe appeal bond must be overruled, -as before it was made be bad already joined in tbe appellant’s assignment of error. A joinder in error is an unequivocal act implying a submission by tbe appellee to tbe jurisdiction of tbe appellate court, and amounts to a waiver of an appeal and of any of the steps required to effectuate it. — Thompson v. Lea, 28 Ala. 453; Myers v. Begars, 41 Ala. 385.

Tbe recital of the judgment entry as to a “verified account filed Avith tbe clerk, verified by tbe affidavit of a competent person as required by law for tbe sum of $319.46.” fairly imports a finding by tbe court of tbe existence of tbe fact that there was on file in tbe court an itemized statement of tbe account sued on, verified by tbe affidavit of a competent witness, made before and certified by an officer having authority under tbe laws of this state to take and certify affidavits, which, under tbe provision of section 3971 of tbe Code, dispensed with tbe neecssity of executing a writ of inquiry to ascertain tbe amount of tbe judgment taken by default. In this respect tbe recital was materially different from tbe one in tbe case of Parsons Lumber co. v. West-Steagall G. & M. Co., 163 Ala. 594, 50 South. 1034, which was held to be insufficient to show the existence of authority in tbe court to render judgment by default without a writ of inquiry. We are of opinion that tbe judgment in tbe instant case sufficiently shows tbe existence of tbe fact which, under tbe statute, entitled the court to enter judgment by default, without tbe intervention of tbe jury, and that the judgment is not erroneous because of a non-compliance with tbe statute just referred to.

Affirmed.