Court Opinion

ID: 9683173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:23:46.20767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:45.853623
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Justice
(dissenting),
This is a very peculiar decision. As I understand it, all seven Justices agree that the original opinion states “the better rule”, that the testimony with reference to what Dr. Hughston “said”, “thought”, “was afraid to” and “concurred in”, was hearsay and that the holding in the Hussey case is sound. It appears that four of us, a majority, hold that the Grammer case, supra, is overruled and the original opinion correctly states the law to be followed in the future, but four members of the court, also a majority, hold that the law as set out in the original opinion does not apply to this particular case, insofar as the result is concerned, or, to express it another way, the majority thinks the judgment in the instant case should be affirmed, but warns that the next case on the same law and the same facts will be reversed.
Section 43 of our constitution provides for the distribution of powers of government “to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.” This decision appears to be opposed to the “end" at which the quoted part of § 43 seems to be aimed.
The original dissent by Justice SIMPSON, together with the concurring- opinion of Justice MAYFIELD, has now become the majority insofar as the result is concerned, and as I understand that original dissent, it is based on the doctrine of stare decisis because “the rule of the Grammer Case has prevailed in this jurisdiction for some fifteen years and was the governing rule of evidence which the trial Judge was required to follow in the instant case.”
All judicial decisions are by necessity ex post facto. If we followed the rule of *421stare decisis as contended for by the majority, no case would ever be overruled by this court irrespective of how wrong, improper or ill-conceived it might have been, because as stated by the majority, “no doubt many other cases not brought up for review have also been governed by this latter [the Grammer] case.” But consider the case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, a judicial landmark in our jurisprudence. There the Supreme Court of the United States overruled Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 10 L.Ed. 865, which had been followed in many cases for 96 years. And incidentally that decision reversed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $30,000, which was twice the amount of the judgment in the instant case. We know of no responsible authority who contends now that Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins is wrong or that the Supreme Court of the United States should not have decided as it did because the lower court and the circuit court of appeals followed Swift v. Tyson, supra, which had been the law for 96 years, or that the judgment in the Erie case should not have been reversed because the plaintiff had secured one for $30,000 by following Swift v. Tyson, supra, and all the cases which followed it. Verily, a majority of this court has added a new and strange concept to records of judicial pronouncements.
A fine statement expressing the proper limits on the applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis is found in Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119, 60 S.Ct. 444, 451, 84 L.Ed. 604, where the court said:
“We recognize that stare decisis embodies an important social policy. It represents an element of continuity in law, and is rooted in the psychologic need to satisfy reasonable expectations. But stare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision, however recent and questionable, when such adherence involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience.”
In 14 Am.Jur., “Courts”, § 82, we find:
“In a number of cases it has been said that a single decision will not afford a basis for the application of the doctrine of stare decisis, and in other cases courts have refused to apply this doctrine without emphasizing the fact that there had been but a single decision on the point;”
and in 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 186, p. 301, we read:
“A single decision, however, is not necessarily binding, under the rule of stare decisis, especially where it has not been cited for many years; and this rule will not be applied where the decision is in conflict with prior decisions, * * *.”
The Supreme Court of Louisiana in Miami Corporation v. State, 186 La. 784, 173 So. 315, 320, quoted approvingly from another case as follows:
“1 “The rule of stare decisis is entitled to great weight and respect when there has been, on a point of law, a series of adjudications all to the same • effect; but when we are presented with a single decision, which we believe to have been inadvisedly made, it is incumbent on us to overrule it, if we entertain a different opinion on the question submitted.” ’ ”
That opinion also says that “it must be remembered that only seldom can a single decision serve as a basis for stare decisis, and never where opposed to previous decisions, and especially where such previous decisions are overruled without being referred to, as if having escaped altogether the attention of the court.” These principles are especially appropriate in reference to the Grammer case because as we stated in the original opinion, “the quoted part of the Grammer case has not been followed by this court since it was announced” in 1940; it overruled the Hussey case without referring to it; and it is a fair assertion to make that the Hussey case escaped the attention of the court when the Grammer case was being considered.
*422But what has this court done and said about overruling cases which have been followed by this court and recently so?
In Hand v. Stapleton, 145 Ala. 118, 125, 39 So. 651, where this court twice previously in the same case had construed the same local act the same way and then reversed the two previous holdings, the opinion begins:
“Simpson, J. The decision of this case depends in a large measure on the construction to be given to the act of February 5, 1901, for the removal of the county seat of Baldwin county. Acts 1900-01, p. 754. As this matter has been before this court twice, and the decisions concur in the construction of this act, the construction which this court has placed upon said act should not be disturbed, unless there are cogent reasons for holding that the former construction was erroneous; but the magnitude and importance of the interests involved, and the fact that the last decision was by a divided court, suggest that it is proper to reexamine the question.”
It should be remembered that the decision in the Grammer case was by a divided court.
The recent case of Redwine v. Jackson, 254 Ala. 564, 49 So.2d 115, 125, overruled Warner v. Warner, 248 Ala. 556, 28 So.2d 701, and Justice Lawson, speaking for the majority, said:
“There is no doubt that the holding in the Warner Case here involved is contrary to the legislative intent as well as to the rule which this court had consistently followed prior thereto. True, this court should do all within its power to follow a consistent course. But where, as here, it is apparent that a holding which has been in the books only a comparatively short time is clearly wrong, and upsets a rule of long standing, we feel that this court should not hesitate to depart therefrom. We are fully convinced that the rule of the case of Warner v. Warner, 248 Ala. 556, 563, 28 So.2d 701, with which we are here concerned, should be overruled and no longer followed. This, of course, applies to the few equity cases which have followed Warner v. Warner, supra, in this respect, which include Adams v. Griffin, [253 Ala. 371] 45 So.2d 22; Crum v. Crum, [253 Ala. 163] 43 So.2d 392.”
The Redwine case shows that the Warner case was followed at least in the two cases cited. Yet the Grammer case, which apparently is clearly wrong and upsets a rule of fifty-two years standing and has never been followed by this court, should not be overruled because “The rules of evidence touching the admissibility of expert testimony are not always exact, but at times somewhat adumbrant”.
It being impossible in my mind to justify the holding of the majority on the grounds stated, I must of necessity dissent.
STAKELY and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.