Case ID: ala_222/html/0309-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(132 So. 322)
    CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. SIMMONS.
    6 Div. 592.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Jan. 29, 1931.
    Wilkinson & Burton and" Hollis O. Black, all of Birmingham, for movant (appellant).
    Robert J. Wheeler and Marvin Woodall, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

It is insisted that the penalty of 10 per cent, as provided by section 6153 should not be taxed against the defendant upon the affirmance of the moneyed judgment, because there was no legal supersedeas of the judgment as the defendant while giving a supersedeas bond had no surety thereon. There might be merit in this contention, but for section 1900 of the Code of 1923, which authorizes the mayor to execute the bond and that no sureties be required. Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505, 126 So. 169. Nor is a judgment for the 10 per cent., dependent upon the fact that there must be more than one obligor upon the bond, as section 6153 expressly provides that the judgment must be rendered against “all or any of the obligors on the bond.” (Italics supplied.) The defendant was an obligor on the bond.

We are also of the opinion that section 6153 applies to an affirmance of all judgments or decrees for money regardless of the nature or character of the defendant; that is, includes judgments against municipalities.

We think that section S565 of the Code provides for interest from the rendition of the judgment and is broad enough to include the one against the city of Birmingham.

Motion, denied.

All the Justices concur.