Title: Skinner v. Florence

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

439 So. 2d 118 (1983)
Aubrey E. SKINNER
v.
O.H. FLORENCE, as Judge of Probate, Jefferson County, Alabama, and Jack Biddle, III.
82-115.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 30, 1983.
Stephen Grimes, Gardendale, for appellant.
G. William Noble of Barnett, Tingle, Noble & Sexton and Max C. Pope, Birmingham, for appellees.
EMBRY, Justice.
This is an action filed by Aubrey E. Skinner, as a taxpayer, voter, and resident of House of Representatives, District 35. He sought injunctive relief from the trial court against O.H. Florence, as Judge of Probate of Jefferson County, Alabama, and Jack Biddle, III.
Skinner requested that court to mandate that Judge Florence remove the name of Biddle from the ballot as a candidate for the position of House of Representatives, District 35, in the Democratic Party Primary *119 Election to be, and since, held on 7 September 1982. Skinner contends that Biddle failed to comply with § 17-22-5, Code 1975, commonly referred to as the "Corrupt Practices Act." Skinner contends in support thereof that Biddle failed to file with the Probate Judge of Jefferson County the statement required by such statute declaring the name or names of the persons to receive and disburse campaign funds within five days after announcement of his candidacy. The timeliness of the filing of such statement is the sole issue to be examined by this court.
A hearing was initially set on the application of that plaintiff for a preliminary injunction. On the date the matter came to be heard, the parties and their attorneys stipulated and agreed in open court to advance the trial of the action on the merits and submit for adjudication by final judgment. The action was submitted on the pleadings, and evidence.
The trial court concluded as follows:
Then, Skinner filed a motion for new trial which was denied. This appeal ensued.
It is well settled that there is a presumption of correctness in a trial court's findings in any case heard ore tenus. Its judgment will not be disturbed unless palpably wrong, without supporting evidence, or manifestly unjust. Chism v. Hicks, 423 So. 2d 143 (Ala.1982). We have carefully reviewed the record in the case at bar and find it supports the trial court's decision.
We here note testimony which indicates the tendencies of the evidence:
From the testimony of Florence and Holt, we ascertain there was not an established procedure at the Jefferson County Probate Court for the filing of candidates' qualification forms which required that each form be stamped upon receipt by the court. Had there been such a procedure, the stamped date of filing on the document would have been strong evidence of the actual date of filing. Because Skinner did not prove there was any correlation between the stamped date and the actual date of filing with the probate office, the only evidence of the actual date of filing was testimony presented by Moore and Biddle. They both testified the form was filed on 23 June 1982.
*120 Therefore, the judgment entered in behalf of O.H. Florence and Jack Biddle, III, is due to be and is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.