Court Opinion

ID: 9825563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:23:43.498461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:00.031744
License: Public Domain

*390On Rehearing.
On original consideration of this cause, without reference to later statutes, we construed section 27 of the Municipal Court Act (Local Acts 1915, pp. 231, 238) as depriving the municipal court of all control of its judgments after five days from their rendition. On rehearing our attention has been called to later section 18 of the Act approved September 23, 1919 (General Acts 1919, p. 457), which reads as follows:
“Such courts, shall have control of judgments rendered by them for a period of five days from the rendition thereof for the purpose of granting new trials upon proper and legal showing therefor.”
Thus, in so many words, the control of an inferior court over its judgments is limited to- five days. Since section 18 of the act of 1919 superseded section 27 of the local act of 1915, a decision on the effect of said section 27 is rendered moot. The action of the circuit court in dismissing the appeal from the municipal court was in full accord with the act of 1919 (section 18).
As showing the applicability of the 1919 act, we note that the general act of 1915 (page 825) undertook to regulate all inferior courts in counties of the class to which the municipal court of Birmingham belongs, and by section 16 expressly repealed all laws or parts of laws, general, special, or local, in conflict with its provisions. The act of 1919 in turn amended the general act of 1915, thus superseding the local act of 1915, where any conflict appears.
This court has thought it wise to restore this case to the rehearing docket, for the purpose of giving consideration to section 18 of the act of 1919, above, which was not called to our attention on the original submission.
The rehearing is denied.