Title: Blankenship v. Blankenship

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

82 So. 2d 335 (1955)
Ocie V. BLANKENSHIP
v.
Mary A. BLANKENSHIP.
8 Div. 773.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 18, 1955.
*336 Brewer & Coleman, Decatur, for appellant.
Britnell & McEntire, Decatur, for appellee.
GOODWYN, Justice.
On November 23, 1951, Mary A. Blankenship, appellee, filed a bill of complaint in the Morgan County Court, in equity, against her son Ocie V. Blankenship, appellant, to set aside and cancel a deed executed by her and her husband on October 1, 1942, conveying to appellant certain real estate located in Morgan County. At the time of filing the bill appellant was in the military service of the United States in Japan and service of the bill on him was effected by registered mail. The return receipt was received and filed in the register's office on December 28, 1951, and showed delivery of the summons and bill of complaint to appellant on December 14, 1951. On December 27, 1951, the following instrument was filed on behalf of appellant in said cause, viz.:
"State of Alabama Morgan County.
"Before me, the undersigned authority in and for the above named County, in said State, this day personally appeared J. W. Sherrill, Jr., the Solicitor for the above named Respondent, and upon being duly sworn, and says that he is informed and believes and upon such information and belief states that the said Ocie V. Blankenship, the respondent is now in the services of the Government of the United States of America, and that he is in the Armed Services of the United States at present, and that he is in Korea at this time, and that the respondent is unable to defend this suit at this time, and that the said respondent has a good and meritorious defense to this bill, and that he is unable to enter upon and advise his solicitor in the defense of this suit at this time. And that he is fighting at this time and was so fighting at the time that he received the notice of this suit.
"Wherefore the respondent, Ocie V. Blankenship, by and through his Solicitor prays that this Court will either quash the Bill of Complaint in this cause, and the service made on this respondent, or continue this cause until the said Ocie V. Blankenship, has been discharged from the Armed Services of His Country, so that he can properly defend this suit. And the respondent, through his Solicitor hereby pleads the benefits of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act, that was enacted for the benefit of citizens of the United States or her Allies, in such cases as the respondent's.
*337 On April 24, 1952, appellee filed a motion to have the court "make and enter an order, judgment or decree appointing a licensed practicing attorney at law in the State of Alabama to represent and defend the interests of the respondent, Ocie V. Blankenship, in the above styled cause, and that his solicitor of record, John W. Sherrill, Jr., be given notice of the time, place and date of the hearing of this motion". It is stated in the motion that "complainant * * * is the mother of the respondent, Ocie V. Blankenship, that she is over 80 years of age, and that this suit involves real estate and the setting aside of conveyances from complainant to respondent, that time is the essence of this suit and should be expeditiously handled."
Hearing of the motion was set for May 8, 1952, and notice of the hearing was served on "John W. Sherrill, the solicitor of record of the defendant herein on this April 25, 1952."
Also, on April 24, 1952, appellee filed notice that submission of appellant's motion of December 27, 1951, would be asked at the hearing on May 8, 1952. Copy of this notice was served on "John W. Sherrill, the solicitor of the record for Ocie V. Blankenship the defendant herein" on April 25, 1952.
On June 13, 1952, a decree was rendered denying appellant's motion to quash or continue the cause. The decree contains the following findings by the trial court:
It is also recited in the decree that a copy of appellee's motion of April 24, 1952, and the order setting the hearing on May 8, 1952, was served on John W. Sherrill, "solicitor of record for Ocie V. Blankenship, respondent in this cause, and that the said John W. Sherrill appeared in open court upon the hearing of said cause on May 8, 1952"; and that "the court is of the opinion, after a consideration of the evidence in support of the motion to have counsel appointed to represent the respondent, Ocie V. Blankenship, and to require the cause to proceed, that said motion is well taken." In the decree, the court appointed Sherman B. Powell, a practicing attorney of Decatur, Morgan County, "to represent and defend the interest of the respondent, Ocie V. Blankenship, upon the hearing of this cause but without excluding any counsel that the said Ocie V. Blankenship may employ to represent him in said cause." A copy of the decree was delivered to the respondent on June 24, 1952, by registered mail, as directed in the decree. The decree further provided that respondent should "plead, answer or demur to the bill of complaint in this cause within thirty (30) days from the date this decree is enrolled." The appointed attorney accepted the appointment on June 14, 1952, and thereafter appeared for and represented the respondent. There is no indication that Mr. Sherrill took any further part in the case. On July 14, 1952, the appointed attorney demurred to the bill. The demurrer was overruled on October 10, 1952. The appointed attorney then answered the bill on *338 October 14, 1952, denying its averments and demanding strict proof. Testimony of appellee's witnesses was taken on December 19, 1952, by deposition. The appointed attorney was present and cross-examined the witnesses. No testimony was taken on behalf of appellant.
Final submission of the cause was had on March 10, 1953, and final decree rendered on March 13, 1953, granting relief to appellee.
On March 26, 1954, appellant filed a motion for "a rehearing in said cause and to set aside and vacate the final decree * * and to permit the respondent to answer the bill of complaint." The motion, as last amended, recites the following:
Hearing of the motion was had on April 9, 1954, and on April 23, 1954, a decree was rendered denying it.
On May 20, 1954, appellant took an appeal from the decree of April 23, 1954, denying his motion for a rehearing. Submission was had here on January 18, 1955, (1) on appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal, (2) on the merits, and (3) on appellant's petition for mandamus, which is sought in event of a holding that appeal is not appropriate. The trial judge acknowledged service of the petition for mandamus and waived further service or notice.
A threshold question is whether the decree of April 23, 1954, denying appellant's motion of March 26, 1954, is appealable. It is apparent that the motion was made pursuant to § 520, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, 54 Stat. 1180, subdivision (4) of which is as follows:
Our view is that the decree denying the motion, or application, was a "final" decree within the meaning of Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 754, and will support an appeal.
One question presented, an answer to which will determine this appeal, is whether appellant can now claim the benefits of § 520(4), supra. As we see it, the right to such benefits is dependent upon whether there was "a default of any appearance by the defendant" (appellant) in appellee's suit. Section 520(1), 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 54 Stat. 1180, supra. As stated by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Lightner v. Boone, 228 N.C. 199, 45 S.E.2d 261, 262:
It is to be noted that the instrument which appellant's solicitor filed in the suit on December 27, 1951, prayed that the court "either quash the bill of complaint in this cause, and the service made on this respondent, or continue the cause." Was this within the term "any appearance" as used in § 520, supra? We are constrained to hold that it was. As stated in Stone v. Rudolph, 127 W.Va. 335, 32 S.E.2d 742, 745:
Appellant's insistence is that his appearance in the cause was strictly a special appearance for a limited purpose, and not a general appearance. But the benefits of § 520 are made to depend on an absence of any appearance, which includes a special as well as a general appearance. So, whether the appearance made was special or general is not material to the question. The meaning of the phrase was discussed in In re Cool's Estate, 19 N.J. Misc. 236, 18 A.2d 714, 716, 717, where it was said:
It is not disputed that the court had jurisdiction of both the subject-matter of the suit and of the parties. Nor is it disputed that appellant's solicitor was authorized to make the "special" appearance. Accordingly, we must hold that said appearance was such as to deny to appellant the benefits of § 520, supra. The decree of the trial court denying appellant's motion was free of error and is due to be affirmed. So ordered.
Motion to dismiss appeal denied; petition for mandamus denied; affirmed.
LAWSON, STAKELY, MERRILL and MAYFIELD, JJ., concur.