Court Opinion

ID: 9825047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:59:08.896886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:22.003265
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
The appellant rests his application for rehearing on the omission from the order appointing the receiver a requirement that complainant give a bond as provided by § 1158, Code of 1940, Title 7. As we have held this statute is mandatory and such omission in the order constitutes an irregularity, which if the matter had been called to the attention of the court by motion to vacate, followed by a failure or refusal of the court to correct the irregularity, would constitute error to reverse.
However, the court’s jurisdiction in the matter was not nullified by the omission and the order appointing the receiver is not void. It is efficacious to support the appeal. Fowler v. Johnson, 135 Ala. 524, 180 So. 312, 313; Strother v. McCord, 222 Ala. 450, 132 So. 717.
Such irregularity is subject to waiver and was waived in this case by the appellant by motion made immediately for an order allowing a supersedeas and a fixation of the amount of bond therefor, and the execution of a supersedeas bond for appeal from the court’s order. Strother v. McCord, supra. In the last cited case it was observed: “The fact that an appeal is prosecuted and thereby the appointment is suspended pending the appeal does not vacate the appointment. Its effect is merely to suspend, pending such appeal, the authority of the receiver to function as such, and of course suspends the authority and duty of complainant and the receiver to execute the bond as provided in the order of appointment.” [222 Ala. 452, 132 So. 719.]
The irregularity was not noticed by the parties or the trial judge, and if any necessity now exists for a continuance of the receivership, it can be corrected by the court. The supersedeas rendered the error innocuous.
Application overruled:
GARDNER, C. J., and LIVINGSTON and SIMPSON, JJ., concur.