Court Opinion

ID: 9697356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:14:55.103303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:32.011380
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
On application for rehearing, counsel for Palmer & Baker raises the question, among other learned observations, whether this court has abandoned the doctrine of res judicata by not following City of Mobile v. Havard, 289 Ala. 532, 268 So.2d 805 (1972). It appears that learned counsel is somewhat confused as to what is a second appeal of the same case, and what is an appeal of a second case on another complaint.
Title 13, § 28, Code of Alabama, 1940 (Recompiled 1958) provides:
“The supreme court, in deciding each case when there is a conflict between its existing opinion and any former ruling in the case, must be governed by what, in its opinion at that time is law, without any regard to such former ruling on the law by it . . .”
This court in First National Bank of Birmingham v. Garrison, 235 Ala. 94, 177 So. 631 (1937) stated the effect of Title 13, § 28, supra:
“The effect of this last-stated statute was declared in Moulton v. Reid, 54 Ala. 320. It was there observed .' ‘that an opinion of this court, however erroneous, was the law of the case in which it was rendered, and could not be questioned in the primary court, or on a second appeal . . . The rule was sometimes applied to the af*308firmance of judgments, working great individual hardship and injustice. The legislature not only abrogated the rule, but expressly commands this court, if the case returns here on a second appeal, to pronounce judgment, without regard to the former ruling, if that is deemed erroneous.’ This statute entirely changed the rule prevailing at common law. Stoudenmire v. De Bardelaben, 85 Ala. 85, 4 So. 723.”
In City of Fairhope v. Towne of Daphne, 286 Ala. 470, 241 So.2d 887 (1970), this Court stated:
“Under this statute, a former opinion does not conclude or influence us, upon a subsequent appeal, and, if we consider our former opinion to be erroneous, it will be overruled. Smith v. Smith, 157 Ala. 79, 47 So. 220, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 1045.” See also Westchester Fire Insurance Co. of New York v. Green, 223 Ala. 121, 134 So. 881 (1931).
We conclude that the demurrer to the amended complaint on the second appeal of the same case was due to be overruled.
Opinion extended and application for rehearing denied.
HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, BLOODWORTH and JONES, JJ., concur.
COLEMAN, HARWOOD, MADDOX and McCALL, JJ., dissent.