Case ID: ala_36/html/0299-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "A. J. WALKER, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte NALL.
    [liOTIOX FOR SARDATlIUS TO STRIKE CAUSE FROM TRIAL DOCKET.]
    1. Admissibility of parol evidence, in aid ofrecerá, to identify pending cause. — On motion to strike from tlie trial docket a case in which a new trial had teen granted at the last preceding term, the marginal ■statement of the parties’ names, both in the entry of the motion on the motion docket, and in the entry Of the order on the minutes, being erroneous, parol evidence is admissible to identify the case and correct the mistake.
    Application for a mandamus to the circuit court of Pike, Hon. John Gill Shorter presiding, to compel that court to strike from the trial docket a cause in which Jefferson Darby and others were plaintiffs, and the petitioner, James P. Nall, was defendant. On the motion in the circuit court, as appears from the bill of exceptions, it was shown that, at the September term, 1859, a trial was had In the cause, which resulted in a verdict for the defendant; that a new trial was granted, at the same term, on the plaintiffs’ application; and that in the entry ■of the motion for a new trial on the motion docket, and of the order on the minutes granting the new trial, the cause was entitled, “ Jefferson Darby, et al. vs. M. M. Nall,'and J. P. Nall.” On tbe motion to strike tbe cause from tbe docket, the defendant objected to the admission of tbe motion docket and minute entry as evidence, because the entries therein related to another and a different case; but the court overruled his objections, and permitted the plaintiffs to prove, by parol evidence, that said ■entries bad reference to the case in which James P. Nall was the sole defendant, and that there had been no case in court in which he and M. M. Nall had been joint defendants. The defendant reserved exceptions to these rulings of the circuit court, and he now makes them the basis of his application to this court.
    
      0. Cunningham, for the motion,
    cited Lewis v. Lewis, 25 Ala. 316; Reidv. Brasher, 7 Porter, 448; Hudson v. Hudson, 20 Ala. 364.
   A. J. WALKER, C. J.

The mandamus in this case is sought upon the ground, that the grant of a new trial, as stated in the entry upon the minutes, is shown by tbe marginal description of the parties to bo applicable to a case in which there was another defendant besides the proper defendant in the cause. The court below held, that extrinsic evidence was admissible, to show the applicability of the order granting a new trial to the ease. In so ruling, wo think the court committed no error. We think that, from necessity, tbe connection of the order with the case may be shown ; and that being shown, the error in the description of the case will stand corrected by the other parts of the record. — Smith v. Redus, 9 Ala. 99 ; Savage & Darrington v. Walshe, 26 Ala. 633. The decision in Smith v. Redus, supra, is precisely in point. — See Code, §§ 2403, 2404.

Motion refused.