Bozeman v. Dillard
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Vestavia Country Club v. Armstrong (Ala. 1960)
- Bank of Heflin v. Miles (Ala. 1975)
- Cleveland v. Cleveland (Ala. 1955)
- Ex Parte Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation (Ala. Ct. App. 1947)
- Scott v. Leigeber (Ala. 1944)
- Kolb v. Swann Chemical Corporation (Ala. 1944)
- Parker v. Farish (Ala. 1941)
- Ex Parte Savage (Ala. Ct. App. 1939)
- Ex Parte Wright (Ala. 1932)
- Ewart v. Cunningham (Ala. 1929)
- Mosaic Templars of America v. Hall (Ala. 1929)
- Ex Parte Richerzhagen (Ala. 1927)
- Langston v. Louisville & N. R. (Ala. 1926)
- Virginia Bridge & Iron Co. v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. (Ala. 1926)
- Morris v. Corona Coal Co. (Ala. 1926)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The petition is for mandamus to the judge of the law and equity court of Franklin county, to vacate an order made on motion as to assessment of damages by the court after default when a jury was demanded.
The provisions of section -7881, Code of .1923, are specific, in that either party may have the damages assessed by a jury. The statute merely declares the rule established by this court concerning the right to a jury when demanded, and the same may not be waived without the consent of the adverse party. Prudential Casualty Co. v. Kerr, 202 Ala. 259, 80 So. 97; Ex parte Florida Nursery & Trading Co., 201 Ala. 97, 77 So. 391; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bannister, 201 Ala. 681, 79 So. 253; Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v. Lowe, 208 Ala. 12, 93 So. 765.
The judgment by default against defendant was interlocutory until there was a proper assessment of the damages by a jury on execution of writ of inquiry. The 30-day statute has application to a valid judgment. Code 1923, § 6670. • The court did not lose control over the judgment by *225 default to restore the case to the docket for the execution of the writ of inquiry and a proper assessment of the damages hy a jury as demanded by the plaintiff. Moreover, there was no motion made or application by petitioner to the court to set aside the order complained of. Ex parte Edwards, 123 Ala. 102, 26 So. 643; Hill v. Tarver, 130 Ala. 592, 30 So. 499; Moseley v. Collins, 133 Ala. 326, 32 So. 131.
The writ is denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.