Carlisle v. Carmichael

Supreme Court of Alabama

Carlisle v. Carmichael

131 So. 445, 222 Ala. 182, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 512

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 18, 1930

Docket4 Div. 463.

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 131 So. 445 (Carlisle v. Carmichael) 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

Carlisle v. Carmichael, 131 So. 445, 222 Ala. 182, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 512 (Ala. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

A final decree in equity denying relief to complainant was entered in the circuit court July 21, 1928. On July 27, 1928, complainants filed a motion to set aside the final decree and allow them to take further testimony. On November 26, 1928, the court overruled the motion. On March 22, 1929, complainants filed with the register and had him to approve security for costs of an appeal recited to be from a decree rendered on November 27, 1928. The certificate to the transcript shows that the appeal was from the decree of November 26, 1928. If the appeal had purported to be from the final decree rendered July 21, 1928, or if it could be so treated, it came too late — section 6127, Code — -and the court would be without jurisdiction to consider it. Boshell v. Phillips, 207 Ala. 628, 93 So. 576; Lowry v. Hill, 211 Ala. 645, 101 So. 586.

But, as we have stated, the appeal purports to be from the decree overruling a mo *183 tion to set aside the final decree. This court has often pointed out that such decrees are not appealable, though an appeal may be taken from.a ruling on a motion for a new trial at law. Section 6088, Code; Ford v. Ford, 218 Ala. 15, 117 So. 462; Gibson v. Farmers’ Bank of Luverne, 218 Ala. 554, 119 So. 664. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

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

FOSTER, J.

A final decree in equity denying relief to complainant was entered in the circuit court July 21, 1928. On July 27, 1928, complainants filed a motion to set aside the final decree and allow them to take further testimony. On November 26, 1928, the court overruled the motion. On March 22, 1929, complainants filed with the register and had him to approve security for costs of an appeal recited to be from a decree rendered on November 27, 1928. The certificate to the transcript shows that the appeal was from the decree of November 26, 1928. If the appeal had purported to be from the final decree rendered July 21, 1928, or if it could be so treated, it came too late — section 6127, Code — -and the court would be without jurisdiction to consider it. Boshell v. Phillips, 207 Ala. 628, 93 So. 576; Lowry v. Hill, 211 Ala. 645, 101 So. 586.

But, as we have stated, the appeal purports to be from the decree overruling a mo *183 tion to set aside the final decree. This court has often pointed out that such decrees are not appealable, though an appeal may be taken from.a ruling on a motion for a new trial at law. Section 6088, Code; Ford v. Ford, 218 Ala. 15, 117 So. 462; Gibson v. Farmers’ Bank of Luverne, 218 Ala. 554, 119 So. 664. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 So. 445, 222 Ala. 182, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlisle-v-carmichael-ala-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack