Brock v. Stimpson

43 So. 2d 133, 253 Ala. 138, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 213
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 1, 1949
Docket7 Div. 31.
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 43 So. 2d 133 (Brock v. Stimpson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brock v. Stimpson, 43 So. 2d 133, 253 Ala. 138, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 213 (Ala. 1949).

Opinion

SIMPSON, Justice.

This cause was originally submitted on motion to dismiss the appeal and on the merits in the Court of Appeals, but was subsequently transferred to this court under the provisions of § 96, Title 13, Code 1940.

The motion for dismissal takes the point that no citation of appeal was served on appellee or his attorney, as required by § 801, Title 7, Code 1940. We have searched the record in vain to discover such notice, and, indeed, appellant’s brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss seems to admit the absence thereof in the record. Due service of citation of appeal on the adverse party, his attorney or solicitor, is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, and without the record so showing, the appeal is subject to dismissal. Riddle v. Adams, 231 Ala. 596, 165 So. 848; McLeod v. Turner, 230 Ala. 673, 162 So. 309; State ex rel. Lynne v. Gurley, 217 Ala. 666, 117 So. 297. See also Supreme Court Rule 30, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix.

But appellant contends that the action of appellee in filing a brief upon the merits and cross-assigning errors constitutes a waiver of service of such citation. Under our authorities it has been held that such action cannot be construed as a waiver. Riddle v. Adams, supra; Mutual Savings Life Ins. Co. v. Osborne, 30 Ala. App. 399, 7 So.2d 314.

Appellee’s motion to dismiss is in proper form, due notice thereof was timely given, and the motion has, since its filing, been earnestly insisted upon. It results, therefore, that under the above-cited authorities the motion must of necessity be granted.

Appeal dismissed.

BROWN, FOSTER, and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tolbert v. Ervin
264 So. 3d 879 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2018)
Terry v. City of Decatur
275 So. 2d 167 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1973)
Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Roberts
257 So. 2d 333 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1972)
Sachs v. Sachs
149 So. 2d 926 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Lovelady v. Thomas
139 So. 2d 335 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1962)
Sterrett v. Beasley
138 So. 2d 700 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1961)
Thompson v. State ex rel. Borders
107 So. 2d 890 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Bowlin v. Bowlin
104 So. 2d 630 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Chambers v. Fryer
101 So. 2d 294 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Duncan v. City of Scottsboro
104 So. 2d 446 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 So. 2d 133, 253 Ala. 138, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-stimpson-ala-1949.