Court Opinion

ID: 9824755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:18:12.46058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:09.762349
License: Public Domain

On the Merits
The security for cost of appeal 'having been given as required by statute, we consider the question presented by the submission on the merits.
The appellamt in the cause withdraws his motion for writ of mandamus and dismisses said motion. Hence that petition is not before us for consideration.
 The question of. overruling appellant Harris’s demurrer to appellee Barber’s motion to strike, appellant’s, motion for a summary judgment against appellee as amended is presented by assignments of error. A motion for summary judgment, under the statute (§ 10226 et seq., Code) serves the office as a complaint. McCar*142ley v. White, 144 Ala. 662, 39 So. 978; Id., 154 Ala. 295, 45 So. 155. The ruling thereupon is a final judgment (De Graffenried v. Breitling, 192 Ala. 254, 68 So. 265) and is subject to review by appeal. (Code, § 6078; Ex parte Adams, 216 Ala. 241, 113 So. 235; Cooper v. Cooper, 216 Ala. 366, 113 So. 239; Martin v. Alabama Power Co., 208 Ala. 212, 94 So. 76; Lathrop Lumber Co. v. Pioneer Lumber Co., 207 Ala. 522, 93 So. 427) when such motion is granted.
The reporter will set out the judgment.
It is declared by statute that motions made in writing on appeal become a part of the record. Code, § 9459. Where the motion is tried upon the facts, which must be supported by the evidence, 'it can only be supported by the bill of exceptions and must support the exception. Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, 202 Ala. 606, 81 So. 548; Dorrough v. Mackenson, 231 Ala. 431, 165 So. 575; National Surety Co. v. O’Connell, 16 Ala.App. 654, 81 So. 146; Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254, 17 So. 517.
It is further insisted that on appeal, in motion for summary judgment, the record must show every fact of compliance with jurisdictional requirements. Such statutes are strictly construed in the requirement for efficiency. Code, § 10226, and authorities collected in Michie’s Code, same section; North Birmingham Trust & Savings Bank v. Hearn et al., 211 Ala. 18, 99 So. 175, cited in 59 A.L.R. 60.
There is no bill of exceptions. The reasonable presumption of correctness will be. indulged in favor of the rulings of the trial court..-. Taylor v. Hoffman, 231 Ala. 39, 163 So. 339; City Cleaning Co. v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., 204 Ala. 51, 85 So. 291; Johnston Bros. Co. v. Washburn, 16 Ala.App. 311, 77 So. 461; Ex parte Washburn, 201 Ala. 698, 77 So. 1002; Sisson v. Pruitt, Ala.App., 183 So. 686. There is nothing to review as to the correct findings of the court upon the facts.
Under the decisions a restatement of the minute entry is not proper evidence on appeal, when exception is taken to the ruling of the court assigned for error. The court is unable to' review the question sought to be raised. Evans v. Southern Ry. Co., 133 Ala. 482, 32 So. 138; Dorough v. Harrington & Sons, 148 Ala. 305, 42 So. 557. From this situation the Act of September 18, 1915, p. 598, affords no relief. Code, § 9549; Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson, supra.
The recitals in'the judgment entry are of no avail on the evidence and finding therefrom, when the assignment of error relates to the conclusion and judgment of the trial court sitting without a jury. Code, §§ 9498, 9502; Bridgman v. Doss, 9 Ala.App. 615, 64 So. 173; Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254, 17 So. 517; Floyd v. Lamar, 13 Ala.App. 504, 69 So. 227; Alosi v. Birmingham Water Works Co., 1 Ala.App. 630, 55 So. 1029.
We are then brought to a decision of whether the court erred in granting appellee’s motion as amended to strike appellant’s motion for summary judgment against appellee. It is the general rule that' pleadings are not stricken on motion, except for prolixity, irrelevance, frivolousness or unnecessary repetition. Code, § 9458; Beatty v. Hartwell, 217 Ala. 239, 15 So. 164.
It is further established that de-, murrer and not motion to strike is the appropriate method of testing the sufficiency of pleadings; that a motion to strike should be granted only where the pleadings are unnecessarily prolix, irrelevant, frivolous, or unnecessarily repeated. May, Sheriff, et al. v. Strickland, 235 Ala. 482, 180 So. 93; Sibley v. Bowen, 222 Ala. 13, 130 So. 547; Code, § 9458.
In the judgment of the trial court there was error. Demurrer would have offered the opportunity for due amendment, as pointed out by such proper pleading.' The effect of the decree was to deny appellant his due process, and to unduly limit the effect of the statute as to summary judgments, as provided by Chapter 346, Code of 1923, § 10226 et seq.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
GARDNER, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.