Court Opinion

ID: 9824817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:29:18.727525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:08.399697
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The opinion in this ease is modified, so as to include count 2 with count 1 so far as the discussion is applicable and to, group counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 together. In other words, counts 1 and 2 are governed by the Act of 1911, and counts 3, 4, 5, and 6, by the Act of 1915.
We are asked in brief to consider further that part of counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 which alleges :
“That the defendant, in making the returns for franchise taxes for said year, filed a written statement under oath to the probate judge showing the name of the corporation, the state wherein incorporated, and its principal place of business, setting out the amount claimed by the said defendant as the actual amount of capital employed in this state; and plaintiff avers that the judge of probate with whom such statement was filed did not summon before him any of the officers of said defendant corporation or any other witnesses, and swear and examine them, nor did he inspect any of the papers, books, or documents of the corporation, nor hold any inquiry whatsoever to ascertain what was the actual amount of capital employed by said defendant in this state during the said year, but that said affidavit was filed with the payment made to a clerk in the office of the probate judge of said county, and license or franchise tax receipt issued for said year by the probate judge of said county to said defendant.”
We have, we think, correctly held in the opinion in this case that, as to the^RlS act, the 'act of the probate -jndge was judicial. If that is so, the issuance of the license or tax receipt is in effect bis judgment, into which is merged all prior proceedings relating to the final judgment and behind which the plaintiff may not inquire in this proceeding. Morrison v. Morrison, 3 Stew. 444; Gamble v. Jordan, 54 Ala. 432; Alexander v. Nelson, 42 Ala. 462; Offutt v. Vance, 42 Ala. 243.
The allegations of the complaint show the jurisdictional facts necessary to give the probate judge jurisdiction of the matter, and his action thereon, the fact that the ministerial act of merely receiving the statement and receipt and counting the money was done by a clerk in the office of the probate jndge, *198presumably under his direction, would not be sufficient to render his judgment void.
The application for rehearing is overruled.