Ex Parte Smith, 438 So. 2d 766 (Ala. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Ex Parte Smith, 438 So. 2d 766 (Ala. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
149 citation events (126 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ex parte David Eugene Files. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF Crim. APPEALS (In re: David Eugene Files v. State of Alabama) (Walker Circuit Court: CC-02-289.63 Crim. Appeals: CR-2023-0062)., 413 So. 3d 679 (Ala. 2024)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Under fire: who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this case. This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Dissent Bandy v. Scrushy (Ex parte Scrushy), 262 So. 3d 638 (Ala. 2018)
“Co. , 31 So.3d 661 , 663 n.2 (Ala. 2009) ("Although Progressive does not raise in its petition the precise jurisdictional issue we address, the ' "[l]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu ." ' " (quoting Ex parte Berry , 999 So.2d 883 , 888 (Ala. 2008), quoting in…”
Dissent Bandy v. Scrushy (Ex parte Scrushy), 262 So. 3d 638 (Ala. 2018)
“Co. , 31 So.3d 661 , 663 n.2 (Ala. 2009) ("Although Progressive does not raise in its petition the precise jurisdictional issue we address, the ' "[l]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu ." ' " (quoting Ex parte Berry , 999 So.2d 883 , 888 (Ala. 2008), quoting in…”
Dissent Burns Church, Inc. v. Alabama Dist. Council of the Assembies of God, Inc., 168 So. 3d 1188 (Ala. 2014)
“This Court has recognized that it is our judicial duty “to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero moto.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983).”
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 768 Duty of appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction91 citing cases“lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.”23 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (90%) · 89 listed here
Show 79 more citing cases
  • Mitchell v. Campbell, 217 So. 3d 920 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).published
    Although we agree that subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged for the first time on appeal, see, e.g., Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1988), we must first determine whether this court has jurisdiction to consider the husban…
  • J.D. v. M.B., 226 So. 3d 706 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).published
    “The timely filing of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional act.” Thompson v. Keith, 365 So.2d 971, 972 (Ala.1978), “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consid…
  • Okafor v. State, 225 So. 3d 72 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).published
    “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (citing City of Hun…
  • Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Nunnelley, 196 So. 3d 1227 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).published
    Nunnelley relies on Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983), to support his argument that the circuit court was precluded from considering the merits of Safeway’s district-court action.
  • Penick v. Roberts, 203 So. 3d 1224 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).published
    “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties- and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (citing City of Hu…
  • Woodget v. State Dep't of Human Resources ex rel. Woodget, 184 So. 3d 409 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).published
    P. See also Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Human Res., 999 So.2d [891] at 895 [(Ala.2008)] (‘[W]e are obligated to dismiss an appeal if, for any reason, [subject-matter] jurisdiction does not .exist.’ (citing Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768…
  • Evans v. Anderson, 176 So. 3d 232 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).published
    “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (citing City of Hun…
  • Burns Church, Inc. v. Alabama Dist. Council of the Assembies of God, Inc., 168 So. 3d 1188 (Ala. 2014).published 2 cites
    This Court has recognized that it is our judicial duty “to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero moto.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983).
  • CAG MLG, L.L.C. v. Bart Smelley & Smelley Fam. Investments, L.L.C., 163 So. 3d 346 (Ala. 2014).published
    Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. v. Benise-Dowling & Assocs., Inc., 33 So.3d 1216 , 1219 n. 4 (Ala.2009) (‘[Section 10A-2-15.02(a) ], Ala.Code 1975, does not preclude the courts of this state from exercising jurisdiction over actions broug…
  • Rush v. Rush, 163 So. 3d 362 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).published
    “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (citing City of Hun…
  • M.E.W. v. J.W., 142 So. 3d 1168 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).published
    Co., 689 So.2d 210, 211 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (quoting Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala.1987)). ‘Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject m…
  • Wausau Dev. Corp. v. Nat. Gas & Oil, Inc., 144 So. 3d 309 (Ala. 2013).published
    Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. v. Benise-Dowling & Assocs., Inc., 33 So.3d 1216 , 1219 n. 4 (Ala.2009) (‘[Section 10A-2-15.02(a) ], Ala.Code 1975, does not preclude the courts of this state from exercising jurisdiction over actions broug…
  • D.G. v. K.H., 155 So. 3d 242 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).published
    Initially, however, we note that, although neither party has raised the issue whether the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter, “it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject-matter jurisdictio…
  • Hughes v. Branton, 141 So. 3d 1021 (Ala. 2013).published
    Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983).
  • South Alabama Gas Dist. v. Knight, 138 So. 3d 971 (Ala. 2013).published
    Mootness on Appeal Events occurring subsequent to the entry or denial of an injunction in the trial court may properly be considered by this Court to determine whether a cause, justiciable at the time the injunction order is entered, has b…
  • McCaskill v. McCaskill, 111 So. 3d 736 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).published
    “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983).
  • Chappell v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 106 So. 3d 904 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).published 2 cites
    It is well settled that “ ‘jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu.’ Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711, 712 (Ala.1987). ‘Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be wai…
  • M.G. v. J.T., 105 So. 3d 1232 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).published
    Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Human Res., 999 So.2d 891, 895 (Ala.2008) (quoting Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983)) (“ ‘[I]t is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject-matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.’ ”). “ ‘It…
  • Boswell v. Lowery, 107 So. 3d 212 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).published
    Although the parties have not raised the issue whether this court has jurisdiction over Boswell’s appeal, “ ‘jurisdictional matters are of such magnitude that we take notice of them at any time and do so even ex mero motu.’ Nunn v. Baker,…
  • Altapointe Health Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 90 So. 3d 139 (Ala. 2012).published
    “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983).
  • Univ. Hospitals v. Mobile Infirmary Asso., 1091560 (Ala. 12-9-2011), 89 So. 3d 735 (Ala. 2011).published
    Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983). “ ‘ “ ‘[J]usticiability is jurisdictional,’ Ex parte State ex rel.
  • M.P.Q. v. Birmingham Realty Co., 1091582 (Ala. 8-12-2011), 78 So. 3d 391 (Ala. 2011).published
    “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983).
  • Ingram v. Van Dall, 70 So. 3d 1191 (Ala. 2011).published
    We note that, “ ‘[o]n questions of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court is not limited by the parties’ arguments or by the legal conclusions of the trial ... eourt[ ] regarding the existence of jurisdiction.’ Exparte Alabama Dep’t of Hu…
  • DuBose v. Weaver, 68 So. 3d 814 (Ala. 2011).published
    Also, “[l]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983).
  • Lauterbach v. Gordon, Dana, Still, Knight & Gilmore, LLC, 56 So. 3d 613 (Ala. 2010).published 2 cites
    P. See also Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Human Res., 999 So.2d at 895 (“[W]e are obligated to dismiss an appeal if, for any reason, [subject-matter] jurisdiction does not exist.” (citing Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala. 1983))).
  • Stokes v. Cottrell, 58 So. 3d 135 (Ala. 2010).published
    In considering that issue, we note that, “[o]n questions of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court is not limited by the parties’ arguments or by the legal conclusions of the trial and intermediate appellate courts regarding the existence…
  • Arlington Props., Inc. v. Brown, 83 So. 3d 503 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).published
    Co., 31 So.3d at 663 n. 2 (quoting Ex parte Berry, 999 So.2d 883, 888 (Ala.2008), quoting in turn Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983)). .
  • Etowah Baptist Ass'n. v. Entrekin, 45 So. 3d 1266 (Ala. 2010).published
    Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983). “ ‘ “[J]usticiability is jurisdictional,” Ex parte State ex rel.
  • Smith v. Houston, 71 So. 3d 721 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).published
    Therefore, “it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983).
  • Raines v. Synovus Trust Co., 41 So. 3d 70 (Ala. 2009).published
    Thus, “[o]n questions of subject-matter jurisdic *74 tion, this Court is not limited by the parties’ arguments or by the legal conclusions of the trial ... court[ ] regarding the existence of jurisdiction.” Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Human…
  • Archer W. Contractors, Ltd. v. Benise-Dowling & Assocs., Inc., 33 So. 3d 1216 (Ala. 2009).published 2 cites
    ([I]t is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu ." (citing City of Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 688 , 127 So.2d 606, 608 (1958)))
  • Ex Parte Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 31 So. 3d 661 (Ala. 2009).published
    NOTES [1] Although Leatherwood was a resident of Tuscaloosa County, where the accident occurred, Livingston was a resident of Hale County and Blakeney Company, LLC, purportedly conducted business there. [2] Although Progressive does not ra…
  • Leatherwood v. Blakeney Co., 31 So. 3d 661 (Ala. 2009).published
    Although Progressive does not raise in its petition the precise jurisdictional issue we address, the “ '[ljack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of sub…
  • Phillips v. Dickey, 47 So. 3d 222 (Ala. 2009).published
    (�Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be *226 waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.’ (citing City of Huntsville v. Miller, 27…)
  • Crutcher v. Williams, 12 So. 3d 631 (Ala. 2009).published
    (Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” (citing City of Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala…)
  • Williamson v. Fourth Avenue Supermarket, Inc., 12 So. 3d 1200 (Ala. 2009).published 2 cites
    P. See also Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Human Res., 999 So.2d at 895 (“[W]e are obligated to dismiss an appeal if, for any reason, [subject-matter] jurisdiction does not exist.” (citing Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983))).
  • Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Williams, 4 So. 3d 1152 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).published
    “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu.” Ex parte Smith, 438 So.2d 766, 768 (Ala.1983) (citing City of Hun…
  • Ex Parte Citizens Bank, 879 So. 2d 535 (Ala. 2003).published
  • Stamps v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 642 So. 2d 941 (Ala. 1994).published
  • K.S. v. H.S., 18 So. 3d 417 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).published
  • Johnson v. Metro Land Co., 18 So. 3d 962 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).published
  • Riley v. Hughes, 17 So. 3d 643 (Ala. 2009).published
  • Championcomm.net of Tuscaloosa, Inc. v. Morton, 12 So. 3d 1197 (Ala. 2009).published
  • Alabama Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Barbour, 5 So. 3d 601 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).published
  • Clark v. Clark, 682 So. 2d 1051 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).published
  • J.B. v. A.B., 888 So. 2d 528 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).published
  • Thompson v. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 806 So. 2d 374 (Ala. 2001).published
  • Ex Parte V.S., 918 So. 2d 908 (Ala. 2005).published
  • Dixon v. State, 920 So. 2d 1122 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).published
  • Ex Parte V.S., 898 So. 2d 713 (Ala. 2004).published
  • Hargett v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, 68 So. 3d 837 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).published
  • Loachapoka Water Auth. v. Water Works Bd., 1091297 (Ala. 6-24-2011), 74 So. 3d 419 (Ala. 2011).published
  • Hilgers v. Jefferson Cnty., 70 So. 3d 357 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).published
  • Johnson v. Neal, 39 So. 3d 1040 (Ala. 2009).published
  • M.B. v. M.M.T., 148 So. 3d 728 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).published
  • Thomas v. Merritt, 167 So. 3d 283 (Ala. 2013).published
  • Russell v. Fuqua, 176 So. 3d 1224 (Ala. 2015).published
  • Satterwhite v. Rodney Byrd Millenium Props., Inc., 180 So. 3d 890 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).published
  • Williams v. Williams, 197 So. 3d 480 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).published
  • Aliant Bank v. Carter, 197 So. 3d 981 (Ala. 2015).published
  • Tulley v. City of Jacksonville, 199 So. 3d 812 (Ala. 2015).published
  • Hasting v. Roberts, 230 So. 3d 391 (Ala. 2017).published
  • A.S. v. C.M., 71 So. 3d 662 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).published
  • Magee v. Home Depot U.S.A., 2100715 (ala.civ.app. 11-4-2011), 95 So. 3d 781 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).published
  • Mabry v. Norris, 784 So. 2d 1060 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).published
  • Gill v. Burrell, 876 So. 2d 487 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).published
  • Hill v. Tucker, 889 So. 2d 583 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).published
  • V.S. v. State, 898 So. 2d 713 (Ala. 2004).published
  • Culbreth v. Watson, 903 So. 2d 127 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).published
  • State v. V.S., 918 So. 2d 908 (Ala. 2005).published
  • Shires Homeowners Ass'n v. John M. Clark (Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court: CV-22-475)., 427 So. 3d 462 (Ala. Civ. App. 2025).published
  • Briana Marquise Matthews v. State of Alabama (Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court: CC-21-204; Crim. Appeals: CR-2024-0308)., No. SC-2024-0447 (Ala. Apr. 25, 2025).published
  • Briana Marquise Matthews v. State of Alabama (Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court: CV-23-59; CL-2024-0288)., No. SC-2024-0480 (Ala. Apr. 25, 2025).published
  • Misesu E. Knighton v. James Knighton (Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court: DR-21-900558.03)., No. CL-2024-0863 (Ala. Civ. App. May 23, 2025).published
  • State of Alabama v. Jeri Bonar, No. CR-2023-0629 (Ala. Crim. App. June 26, 2026).published
  • In re Berry, 999 So. 2d 883 (Ala. 2008).published
  • Singleton v. Graham, 716 So. 2d 224 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998).published
  • Gill v. Burrell, 874 So. 2d 1072 (Ala. 2003).published
  • Mendia v. Encarnacion, 275 So. 3d 158 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).published
At page 767 Subject-matter jurisdiction and unauthorized transfer of action2 citing cases1 listed here
  • City of Ctr. Point v. Crowder, 142 So. 3d 1129 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).published
    Alexander v. Hawk, 189 So.3d 824 , 827 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (holding that, when the district court improperly purported to transfer to the circuit court an action over which the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the circuit c…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Robert Smith. (Re Robert Smith
v.
Elbert Saint).
82-96.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Sep 23, 1983.
Published opinion
438 So. 2d 766
T.J. Carnes of Carnes Carnes, Albertville, for petitioner. Will Beard of Beard Beard, Guntersville, for respondent.
Embry.
Cited by 129 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #44,504 of 633,719
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Alabama (2) · Court of Civil Appeals of Alab… (1)

On petition of Robert Smith, we granted the writ of certiorari to review the Court of Civil Appeals',438 So.2d 762, affirmance of the circuit court order setting aside a third-party default judgment against Elbert Saint entered in district court. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the order, reasoning that under ARCP 14 (dc), the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction to enter a judgment. We quash the writ of certiorari because it was improvidently granted.

The issue before this court is the extent of the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction on appeal where an action filed in district court claiming more than the district court's jurisdictional limit was dismissed rather than transferred under § 12-11-9, Code 1975.

John Deere Company filed a detinue action in Marshall County District Court claiming certain farm equipment or the reasonable value thereof. The complaint alleged the value of the farm equipment to be $5,000. Smith answered the complaint by pleading a general denial and filing a third-party complaint against Saint. The third-party complaint, based on a breach of warranty of title theory, sought damages from Saint in the event that Smith suffered any liability to John Deere.

After proper service on Saint, a default judgment was entered against him for failure to appear.

Testimony in the original action between John Deere and Smith revealed the property in question to be worth $10,000. However, rather than transferring the case to the circuit court, the district court dismissed the case, noting that the jurisdictional limit of the district court was $5,000.

John Deere appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court noted the impropriety of the dismissal; however, under the auspicies of its general supervisory powers, it attempted to correct the flaw by transferring the case itself and holding a trial de novo.

Judgment was rendered in favor of John Deere and against Smith on 1 September 1981. Smith moved to revise the judgment so as to include the default judgment against Saint entered in district court. On 2 October 1981 the circuit court granted Smith's motion.

On 2 November 1981 Saint filed a motion seeking to have the third-party default judgment set aside. Upon review of the record, the circuit court discovered the third-party complaint against Saint was filed in district court contrary to the provisions of ARCP 14 (dc). Accordingly, the circuit court set aside the judgment for third-party plaintiff Smith against third-party defendant Saint, reasoning that the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction over third-party practice. Smith appealed the ruling.

On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, that court rejected the notion of the circuit court's authority to transfer a case from district court to circuit court on its own accord. Furthermore, the court found that any third-party complaint filed in district court was "spurious pleading"; ergo, any judgment arising therefrom was null and void.

Section 12-11-9, Code 1975, provides in pertinent part:

"If a case filed in . . . the district court is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court, the circuit clerk or a judge of the court where the case was filed shall transfer the case to the docket of the appropriate court. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

*Page 768

After testimony in the district court revealed that the amount in controversy undisputedly exceeded the district court's $5,000 jurisdictional limit, under the provisions of § 12-11-9, the district judge should have transferred rather than dismissed the case. However, John Deere neither sought a writ of mandamus directing the district court to transfer the case nor filed a separate action in circuit court, but rather chose to appeal the dismissal.

We are in agreement with the Court of Civil Appeals to the extent that a circuit court is without authority to transfer a cause from an inferior court under the auspices of its general supervisory powers. In re Ingram, 356 So.2d 618 (Ala. 1978). Therefore, before it is necessary to review the effect of third-party practice in district court,1 this court must review the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction over the John Deere claim on appeal.

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter jurisdiction ex mero motu. City ofHuntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 127 So.2d 606 (1958); Paynev. Department of Industrial Relations, 423 So.2d 231 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). If a court is without subject matter jurisdiction, any judgment rendered therein is void. ARCP 60 (b)(4); Nigg v. Smith, 415 So.2d 1082 (Ala. 1982). Where it is unclear whether a court is exercising its original or appellate jurisdiction, but the amount in controversy is within the court's original jurisdiction, an appellate court shall treat the lower court as exercising original jurisdiction. Cash v.Smith, 10 Ala. App. 417, 65 So. 193 (1914). But where, as here, it is clear that the circuit court is exercising appellate jurisdiction, it may consider only those matters raised on appeal to it. It is without subject matter jurisdiction to consider more. See Hooper v. Huey, 293 Ala. 63, 300 So.2d 100 (1974); Walker v. Eubanks, 424 So.2d 631 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982).

The circuit court is vested with exclusive original jurisdiction for cases involving more than $5,000. § 12-11-30, Code 1975. Thus, the district court's jurisdiction was limited to considering whether John Deere's claim exceeded the court's $5,000 jurisdictional amount. Likewise, the circuit court onappeal could only review whether the district court properly determined that the latter lacked subject matter jurisdiction.2 We find that on appeal, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider more than a final judgment over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. See Statev. Pollock, 251 Ala. 603, 38 So.2d 870 (1948); Craig v. Root,247 Ala. 479, 25 So.2d 147 (1946). Accordingly, the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of John Deere's claim. Any judgment rendered without subject matter jurisdiction is void and will not support an appeal. ARCP 12 (h)(3); Bibb v. Boyd, 417 So.2d 206 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982). It follows that whether a third-party default judgment was entered in the district court is of no consequence. The writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals was improvidently granted and is hereby quashed.

WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHED.

MADDOX, FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

TORBERT, C.J., and SHORES, J., concur in the result.

1 The Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure have recently been amended so to allow third-party practice in district court. See ARCP 14 (dc) as amended effective 1 July 1983.
2 Section 12-11-30, Code 1975, authorizes a trial de novo in circuit court for matters appealed from district court. Of course, the circuit court must first have subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.
[EDITORS' NOTE: PAGES 769-773 CONTAINED DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS.] *Page 1359