Opinion
SC 715.
July 18, 1974.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Franklin County, Kennedy Williams, J.
J. Douglas Evans, Florence, for appellant.
Whenever a judgment or decree is so obscure as not to clearly express the exact determination of the court, reference may be had to pleadings in other proceedings to which it refers, and attempts should be made to interpret in light of pleadings in the entire record. Brown v. Brown, 276 Ala. 153, 159 So.2d 855; Bullard v. Williams, 272 Ala. 391, 133 So.2d 688. Every judgment and decree must be perfect in itself, or capable of being made perfect by reference to the pleadings or papers on file in the cause. Gandy v. Hagler, 245 Ala. 167, 16 So.2d 305; Jasper Land Co. v. Riddlesperger, 25 Ala. App. 45, 140 So. 624. In judgment or decree, inconsistency between clauses or conditions which cannot be reconciled, must be resolved in favor of first clause, that is, if upon whole instrument, consistent effect cannot be given to subsequent clause. Burger In a Hurry, Inc. v. Green Grove, Inc., et al., 280 Ala. 341, 194 So. 90.
Taylor Taylor, Russellville, for appellee.
Appellant's only argument is that the decree of the trial court in this land dispute is ambiguous.
We have examined the pleadings, the other proceedings, and the decree. Although the decree is not an example of clarity, it is not so vague and obscure as to be a nullity.
In his final decree, the trial judge refers to a decree of the circuit court of Greene County. The decree of the Greene Circuit Court affected the title to the land in question. The Greene Circuit Court decree referred to is not in the record here. We presume the decree of the Greene Circuit Court supports the decree entered in this cause. Melton v. Melton, 288 Ala. 452, 261 So.2d 887 (1972).
We have interpreted the final decree appealed from in the light of the record filed here and find it is capable of interpretation. Brown v. Brown, 276 Ala. 153, 159 So.2d 855 (1964).
Affirmed.
HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, HARWOOD and FAULKNER, JJ., concur.