Opinion ID: 1710017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Div. 228 Flora Ann Sadler v. D. B. Sessions

Text: The facts in this case are identical with those stated in 6 Div. 227, supra, except that (1) the trial judge did not sign his name following the quoted entry of August 10th, 1950, on the motion; and (2) there were two additional assignments of error: that the court had no power or authority to rule on appellee's motion for a new trial after August 10, 1950, and that it lost all power to act on the motion on the expiration of August 10, 1950. The final difference is that in this case, 6 Div. 228, appellant has submitted it in this court both on petition for mandamus and on appeal. Mandamus is the proper remedy when it is sought, as here, to have an alleged void order or judgment annulled on the ground that the court had lost jurisdiction of the case at the time the alleged void order or judgment was pronounced. Ex parte Phillips, 231 Ala. 364[1], 165 So. 80. The contention that the order was void and the court was without power or authority to act on the motion after August 10th, is based on the fact that the trial judge did not sign his name under or following the order of August 10th, as he did in 6 Div. 227. We cannot agree with this contention. The minute entry here is identical with that of August 10, 1950, in 6 Div. 227, supra. The trial judge states in his affidavit that upon the conclusion of the taking of testimony on August 10, 1950, and in the presence of counsel of record for both parties, he announced in open court that he would take the motions under advisement and render his decision at a later date; that he wrote identical entries on the margin of the motion in each case but he inadvertently omitted signing his name under the entry in the case which is now 6 Div. 228. This court said in Ex parte Phillips, supra [231 Ala. 364(1), 165 So. 85]: The order of July 30, 1934, in taking the motion under advisement after argument, passed the case, under the motion, into the breast of the court, and was an observance of the common-law practice of curia advisari vult. As was said in the case of Ex parte Doak, supra: (188 Ala. 406, 66 So. 64, 67). `The order curia advisari vult manifests the fact that the hearing is complete and the postponement is for allowing deliberation by the courtnot with the view to further or other hearing in the premises.    `The effect of the order of the court taking the motion under advisement being to preserve the power of the court to consider of and pronounce its judgment after the expiration of the 30-day period stipulated in the Practice Act quoted, it is clear that no discontinuance of the proceeding resulted; for it is established with us that a discontinuance can only be predicated of some positive act of the actor in the proceeding, or in consequence of the actor's failure or omission to perform some precedent duty enjoined upon the actor by law. Ex parte Holton, 69 Ala. 164, 188; Ex parte Humes, 130 Ala. 201, 30 So. 732.' A similar pronouncement was made by this court in the more recent case of Greer et al. v. Heyer, supra (215 Ala. 229, 113 So. 14, 15), in which it was observed: `The necessary effect of the decision is that the submission and taking the motion under advisement operated to keep the motion alive until the end of the term. For the purposes in hand, the hearing is regarded as pending, the trial of the motion is constructively in progress until the judgment is rendered, not beyond the limits of the term of court. We approve and allow that rule as most promotive of justice. The movant should not be called upon to disturb the trial judge by calling for a decision on the date of submission, or for continuances from time to time, pending his consideration of the motion.' (Italics supplied.) Therefore, paraphrasing the language of the court in Ex parte Phillips, supra, we are at the conclusion that up to and including the order of the trial judge made in open court, in the presence of counsel for the respective parties on August 10, 1950, there had occurred no grounds for a discontinuance of the motion for a new trial; that the pronouncement made from the bench by the trial judge in open court on August 10, 1950, in the presence of respective counsel for the respective parties, and without objection from them, effected to pass said motion into the breast of the court, irrespective of his inadvertent failure to sign the order, and continued in life said motion until the court rendered its decision on August 25, 1950, and made this decision known to both parties. See Ex parte Schoel, 205 Ala. 248, 87 So. 801. It follows that we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the court had full authority and power to render the judgment on August 25th granting the motion for a new trial. The result is that the petition for mandamus must be denied. Other questions in this case are identical with those raised in 6 Div. 227, supra, and the appeal in this case is dismissed on that authority. Petition for mandamus denied. Appeal dismissed. LAWSON, SIMPSON and STAKELY, JJ., concur.