Commercial Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Commercial Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co.

84 So. 808, 203 Ala. 522, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 91

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 18, 1919

Docket8 Div. 209.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 84 So. 808 (Commercial Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co.) 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

Commercial Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co., 84 So. 808, 203 Ala. 522, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 91 (Ala. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

The court holds that the order of the trial court striking the affidavit of petitioner (defendant in the trial court) for an interpleader is a final judgment as against the defendant, who took an appeal to the Court of Appeals, and therefore that the Court of Appeals committed error in dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was no final judgment to support an appeal.

The writer does not concur. This is a proceeding in a court of law. There is no statute authorizing an appeal in cases of this particular kind. The right of appeal depends upon the general statute, section 2847 of the Code, which provides that au appeal will lie from any final judgment. The question as to the finality of this order is to be determined on common-law principles. According to that law, if the judgment does not dispose of the whole case on its merits, it is not final. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, 1 Sup. Ct. 15, 27 L. Ed. 73; 1 Mich. Dig. p. 303, § 66. I think that the order in this case did nothing more than might have been accomplished by an adverse ruling on any other defensive pleading; it left the original parties to litigate the suit to an end and with the right of review upon a final judgment disposing of the whole case between them. So, whatever may have béen the merit or demerit of defendant’s interpleader, there was, as to defendant at least, no final judgment, no appealable order.

The judgment of the court is that the judgment of the Court of Appeals he reversed, and that the cause be remanded to that court for further proceedings.

All the Justices concur, except SAYRE, J., who dissents, and BROWN, J., not sitting.

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

SAYRE, J.

The court holds that the order of the trial court striking the affidavit of petitioner (defendant in the trial court) for an interpleader is a final judgment as against the defendant, who took an appeal to the Court of Appeals, and therefore that the Court of Appeals committed error in dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was no final judgment to support an appeal.

The writer does not concur. This is a proceeding in a court of law. There is no statute authorizing an appeal in cases of this particular kind. The right of appeal depends upon the general statute, section 2847 of the Code, which provides that au appeal will lie from any final judgment. The question as to the finality of this order is to be determined on common-law principles. According to that law, if the judgment does not dispose of the whole case on its merits, it is not final. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, 1 Sup. Ct. 15, 27 L. Ed. 73; 1 Mich. Dig. p. 303, § 66. I think that the order in this case did nothing more than might have been accomplished by an adverse ruling on any other defensive pleading; it left the original parties to litigate the suit to an end and with the right of review upon a final judgment disposing of the whole case between them. So, whatever may have béen the merit or demerit of defendant’s interpleader, there was, as to defendant at least, no final judgment, no appealable order.

The judgment of the court is that the judgment of the Court of Appeals he reversed, and that the cause be remanded to that court for further proceedings.

All the Justices concur, except SAYRE, J., who dissents, and BROWN, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 So. 808, 203 Ala. 522, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-savings-bank-trust-co-v-a-z-bailey-grocery-co-ala-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack