Title: Pigford v. Billingsley
Citation: 84 So. 2d 664
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: January 12, 1956

84 So. 2d 664 (1956)
O. H. PIGFORD, D/B/A Pigford Farm Equipment Company
v.
B. M. BILLINGSLEY.
3 Div. 709.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 12, 1956.
*665 W. Clarence Atkeison, Prattville and Glen T. Bashore, Clanton, for petitioner.
H. T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Montgomery, opposed.
MAYFIELD, Justice.
This case comes to us on the petition of O. H. Pigford for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of that Court.
Our study of the opinion of the Court of Appeals raises serious questions concerning the factual situation involved in this cause. However, the contentions advanced by the petitioner can only be supported by a reference to the original record in the case. As the opinion of the Court of Appeals does not set out the facts in extenso, this Court is foreclosed from further inquiry into the facts of the cause. The scope of the review of opinions of the Court of Appeals, by this Court, is limited to errors apparent on the face of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The rules applicable to conclusions of fact found by the Court of Appeals were stated in Dixie Drive It Yourself System, Mobile Co., Inc., v. Hames, 253 Ala. 132, 43 So. 2d 143, 144, as follows:
As the case is presented to us on certiorari, we are bound by the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. We, therefore, conclude that the merit of petitioner's contentions cannot be considered on this review.
Petitioner's able counsel strenuously insists that a judgment rendered by the Court of Common Pleas of Autauga County on 21 February 1952 was a final adjudication of the matter in controversy in this suit. Further, that the Court of Common Pleas was without jurisdiction subsequently to avoid its prior judgment. And that, therefore, a subsequent judgment of that court attempting to avoid its first judgment was a complete nullity. The opinion of the Court of Appeals rejects this position taken by *666 the petitioner. Even if we concede that this Court may properly go behind the opinion of the Court of Appeals to determine this question, we find that the matters relied on by the petitioner and essential to establishing his contention are not contained in the record.
We find one statement in the opinion of the Court of Appeals which requires correction. The last paragraph of that opinion is as follows:
The above quoted paragraph of the opinion of the Court of Appeals relies on a statement found in Lackey v. Thomas, 28 Ala.App. 302, 184 So. 262, 263. We do not interpret the paragraph referred to in the Lackey case as a statement of a legal principle. Rather, we interpret this paragraph in the Lackey case to be the application by the Court of Appeals of a correct legal principle to the facts in the particular case then before it.
The correct statement of the law is found in the preceding paragraph of the Lackey case and is as follows:
The last paragraph of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the instant case is specifically disaffirmed, as it does not fully state the law on the point considered in the Lackey case. Also, see Mitchell v. Kinney, 242 Ala. 196, 5 So. 2d 788; Pope v. Howle, 227 Ala. 154, 149 So. 222; Aetna Insurance Co. v. Kacharos, 226 Ala. 504, 147 So. 438, 91 A.L.R. 1432.
Because of the limited scope of our review, the application of the correct rule by the Court of Appeals would lead us to the same result. For that reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.