# Stephens v. International Harvester Co.

> Alabama Court of Appeals · November 12, 1918 · 16 Ala. App. 612

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9825195

## Case

- **Full name:** Stephens v. International Harvester Co.
- **Court:** Alabama Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 12, 1918
- **Citations:** 16 Ala. App. 612; 80 So. 686; 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 281
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Brown
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9825195

## Opinion text

On Rehearing.
In Foster v. Thompson, 10 Ala. App. 365 , 65 South. 414 , the question was whether or not the judgment was void, and for this reason subject to collateral attack, because it appeared on the face of the record that the judgment was rendered on a debt not due, and it was there said:
“The designation of the year 1907 as it appears in the complaint might well be considered as a self-correcting clerical error, and that the year intended to be designated was 1906, the same year in which the account was made. But, however that may be, the fact that the -obligation sued upon was not due would make the judgment erroneous or irregular, but not void.”
[4] The rule applicable to cases of that character is that the invalidity must affirmatively appear on the face of the record, and all doubt will be resolved in favor of the validity of the judgment.
In Sheffield Co. v. Harris, 183 Ala. 357 , 61 South. 88 , the defect in the complaint held to be self-correcting does not seem to have been specifically pointed out by the demurrers, which were held to be properly overruled.
[5] In this case, the demurrers point out a specific demurrable defect, and the court has sustained the demurrer. Should,this court on appeal hold that the judgment of the court is erroneous, because perchance the defect appears to be a clerical error? We think not. The grounds of demurrer were well taken, and the result is that the judgment on them is free from error.
Application overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9825195. Public record. Not legal advice.