Phillips v. AndersonPhillips v. Anderson
Thе appellant filed a petition in the circuit court of Randolph county praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to J. F. Anderson, as clerk of the inferior court of Randolph county, as recited in the judgment of the circuit court, “commаnding him to file complaint and issue process in a . certain suit wherein the said Thomаs Phillips is plaintiff and one Jesse George is defendant.”
Said judgment further recites:
“The only question in this cause is whеther or not a certain Act of the Legislature of Alabama, known as Locаl Act No. 18, being House Bill No. 63, approved February 5th, 1935, and by the terms thereof effective on said February 5th, 1935, is constitutional. If said Act is unconstitutional, petitioner Phillips is entitlеd to the writ for which he prays. If said Act is constitutional, he is not entitled to said writ.
“All parties are before the Court, the cause has been duly submitted and argued.
“Upon cоnsideration the Court is of the opinion that said Act is constitutional.
“It is therefore ordered and decreed that the said petition be and is dismissed, and the costs of this рroceeding are taxed against, petitioner.”
From that judgment this appeаl is prosecuted. The judgment of the court is the only part of the record incоrporated in the transcript; all the pleadings being omitted.
In lieu of the pleаdings in the case, the parties have incorporated in the transcript what thе certificate of the clerk designates as a “full and exact copy оf the certificate of E. B. Parker and D. R. Boyd, attorneys of record for Thomas Philliрs and J. F. Anderson, respectively, certifying to the Supreme Court the questions or pоints of law arising in that certain proceeding in the Circuit Court of Randolph County, Alabаma, wherein Thomas Phillips is Petitioner and J. F. Anderson is. defendant.” This certificate of counsel appears in the reporter’s statement.
The judgment of the circuit сourt was rendered on March 18,1935, and the certificate of the attorneys appears to have been made and filed in the case on March 21, 1935.
The appellant cites and relies on the provisions of section 6090 of the Code оf 1923, to sustain this course of procedure. That section, in so far as here material, provides that: “The parties in the case or proceeding may agrеe as to the question or points of law arising therein, and the same may be cеrtified by the counsel or attorneys of the respective parties, who shall sign thеir names thereto, and, upon such certificate being made, the same shall be filed in the court rendering the decision, and a copy of such certificate, certified by the clerk of said court, with the decision thereon and final decision in the case or prоceedings to the court of appeals or supreme court, and like рroceedings .may be had in the court of appeals or supreme cоurt, as if a full and complete record had been transcribed and certified tо said court.” (Italics supplied.)
We are of opinion that the agreement as to the question of law authorized to be made and certified by counsel for the parties must precede the decision of the trial court and constitute the case presented to and considered by that court. This seems to be the legislative intent as gathered from this sec-, tion and the related sections, and especially this language: “* * * Upon such certificate being made, the same shall be filed in the court rendering the decision, and a copy of such certificatе, certified by the clerk of said court, with the decision thereon and final decision in the case or proceedings,” etc. (Italics supplied.)
To construe the statute otherwise, questions of law could be presented by agreement of the parties wholly different from the question presented to and decided by the trial court, and this would render the stаtute vio-lative of section 149 of the Constitution of 1901, which provides: “Except in cаses otherwise directed in this constitution, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction *479 only.” Section 6090, Code; section 140, Constitution 1901.
Statutes of this class are strictly construed and their requirements must he strictly observed. 60 C. J. 678, § 2.
The record does not show reversible error.
Affirmed.