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

Alabama Court of Appeals

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

83 So. 11, 17 Ala. App. 173, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 183

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 1919

Docket8 Div. 667.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 So. 11 (Commercial Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals 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., 83 So. 11, 17 Ala. App. 173, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 183 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

This case was’ before this court at a former terra on the appeal of the H. C. Schrader Company from a final judgment against it, and on that appeal it was held that the affidavit or plea of interpleader filed - by the original defendant, the appellee here, on its face did not make a case for interpleader, and the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause remanded. H. C. Schrader Co. v. A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co., 15 Ala. App. 647, 74 South. 749; Ex parte A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co., 201 Ala. 79, 77 South. 373.

[1] The effect of that judgment of reversal was to set aside and annul the judgment of the trial court substituting the II. C. Schrader Company as a party defendant, as well as the final judgment against it, leaving the case and the parties in the same status in the trial court as before the order of substitution was made. After remandment, the affidavit and plea of interpleader filed by the appellant here was amended in certain particulars, and as amended, on the motion of I-I. C. Schrader Company, was stricken from the files, and the H. C. Schrader Company discharged, leaving the case pending in the trial court as originally filed. Prom the order striking the plea of interpleader and discharging the H. C. Schrader Company, this appeal is prosecuted.

[2] This statement is sufficient to show that the order appealed from is not a final judgment, and, inasmuch as an appeal is not specially authorized from an order of this character, will not support an appeal. The motion of appellee is therefore granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

This case was’ before this court at a former terra on the appeal of the H. C. Schrader Company from a final judgment against it, and on that appeal it was held that the affidavit or plea of interpleader filed - by the original defendant, the appellee here, on its face did not make a case for interpleader, and the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause remanded. H. C. Schrader Co. v. A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co., 15 Ala. App. 647, 74 South. 749; Ex parte A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co., 201 Ala. 79, 77 South. 373.

[1] The effect of that judgment of reversal was to set aside and annul the judgment of the trial court substituting the II. C. Schrader Company as a party defendant, as well as the final judgment against it, leaving the case and the parties in the same status in the trial court as before the order of substitution was made. After remandment, the affidavit and plea of interpleader filed by the appellant here was amended in certain particulars, and as amended, on the motion of I-I. C. Schrader Company, was stricken from the files, and the H. C. Schrader Company discharged, leaving the case pending in the trial court as originally filed. Prom the order striking the plea of interpleader and discharging the H. C. Schrader Company, this appeal is prosecuted.

[2] This statement is sufficient to show that the order appealed from is not a final judgment, and, inasmuch as an appeal is not specially authorized from an order of this character, will not support an appeal. The motion of appellee is therefore granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 So. 11, 17 Ala. App. 173, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-savings-bank-trust-co-v-a-z-bailey-grocery-co-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack